Labyrinth Game

     You remind me of the babe

          What babe?     
               The babe with the power           
                    What power?                 
                         The power of voodoo                       
                              Who do?                             
                                   You do                                   

                                        Do what?                                         

                                             You remind me of the babe                               

It's one of the greatest stories ever told. It's a musical fantasy epic up there with other classic cinematic milestones such as Citizen Kane, Ben-Hur, Apocalypse Now and Look Who's Talking Too. It's certainly the greatest film ever produced by George Lucas. It features a mixture of ground-breaking CGI* and puppetry**, and it stars Jennifer Connolly before she was legal and some bloke called David Jones*** as the goblin king. But for some reason no one has ever had the foresight to turn Labyrinth into a boardgame...

[Clarksonian pause]
 

 ...until now!

 

 

Maybe the film didn't do so well on it's initial release to warrant a board game release. But it certainly deserves one now, given it's current cult status.

No, I'm not going to make it. I'll let some other idiot do that. But I was inspired to make my own interpretation of the Escher-esque room in the middle of the labyrinth (see picture below). Then I figured, if you had an accurate 3D model of that room then you can turn it into a 3D board game with the use of magnets. It'd be like the not-very-scary Ghost Castle from the 1980's, but with an extra dimension. It could be the simplest dice game; a race from start to finish, or it could be a more complicated affair, with various different marked routes around the room: There would be four players; Sarah, Toby (the baby), Jareth, and Jareth's magic balls ball.

Well?... Laugh.
(more pictures available in the Arts Hole)

The idea is that each player has a target player they need to land on to win.

Jareth's chasing Sarah,

Sarah's chasing Toby,

Toby is chasing Jareth's ball,

and Jareth's ball is chasing ...Jareth? No wait, that can't be right.

Jareth is chasing Toby,

Toby is chasing Sarah,

Sarah is chasing Jareth... oh hang on, that's wrong again.

There has to be some other way that fits in better with the film's storyline.

So,... Toby is chasing Jareth, Jareth's ball is chasing Toby, Hoggle is chasing Sarah, and Sarah is chasing Jareth's package.

*The owl at the start is genuinely cinema's first ever CG animal.

**For the film, director/muppeteer Jim Henson created some very realistic creatures. You'd never have guessed that the life-like role of Sarah's step-dad was created with pioneering animatronics.

***I've asked around at Hollywood, David Jones is apparently the father of the excellent film director Zowie Bowie.

The Future Of Home Entertainment ... (3D Trifle part 3)

This is one of those ideas that doesn't need any scientific explanation, and doesn't rely on non-existent technology or bad science. In short, it's one of my genuinely serious genius ideas.


Think of your favourite movie. How many times have you seen it? Ten?... twenty times? ... more than one hundred times? (seriously, give it a rest). Well you must know that film pretty well by now. Have you ever wondered what would happen if only that character didn't take that action. If only those characters hadn't gone that way or said that line. If they'd taken the blue pill instead, or had hired a bigger boat, ... then what? I'm talking about the alternative universe where the character survives. Where they still have the money, or they realise sooner that the other guy was a figment of his imagination. Or whatever. What I'm proposing, is that film makers should create their cut of the film and also film alternative scenes for if the action had taken a different direction. These wouldn't just be alternative scenes for dvd/blu-ray extras, but entirely new takes on the movie as dictated by the viewer. I'm suggesting releasing the theatrical version at the cinema, then when the blu-ray comes out, have an interactive option halfway through the film, or at the end, or in various places throughout. These options will let the viewer choose a variety of different actions or dialogue choices for certain characters to do, and in some cases they will radically alter the movie's plot. It'd be like those text adventure games or the role-playing books where at certain points you choose what happens next and turn to that page accordingly.

A crew member yells 'Iceberg! Right ahead!'.  What order do you relay to the engine room?

a. Full starboard.  Turn to page 101
b. Full astern.  Turn to page 57
c. All stop.  Turn to page 298

Decisions... decisions...

Obviously in some cases the decisions you make can make the story much less interesting. But it's nice to have the choice. Such interactive movies would only be feasible on blu-ray as a dvd would not be able to hold as much information as required in a film with multiple branches.


Where games and movies meet...

What I'm doing here is blurring the lines between movies and video games. It can still be completely movie like, but with a single choice in the 3rd act - (imagine if Ripley, Hicks, and Bishop decided NOT to rescue Newt at the end of Aliens ... The three of them would get away safely on the Sulaco. The alien queen wouldn't be with them and so Alien³ would never have happened!).
Or it can be much more interactive and more like a video game. I'm not saying shoot alternative scenes for existing movies, - although a retro-redo could be fun (somewhere George Lucas sits up and takes notes) - I'm saying new films could be shot in a way to make their home-market releases a lot more interesting. A plot could go a variety of ways but end at the same destination. Or a single line of dialogue could alter the final scene of a film. The possibilities are endless. Imagine a film shot from a character's point of view. Now if this character has a normal amount of dialogue, but say 5 of his/her lines which are pertinent to the plot are multiple choice lines for the viewer, then what you have there is an interactive POV movie.  ...but it is still a movie. It's not a game.    ....or is it? This is a concept for a movie that puts the viewer in the directors chair. But it doesn't need to be shot from a POV. The lines of dialogue don't need to be plot-oriented. They can just be alternative lines. It's an option that you could simply turn on or off in a menu setting before you watch the film. Having watched the director's cut of the film already you can then choose alternative dialogue/scenes before the film starts. This is the least interactive idea, and one that would be a fantastic extra on a blu-ray. In fact I don't know why no-one has done this already.

The plot thickens...

Now lets look at the flip side of the coin. I've talked about semi-interactive movies, now lets make video games more interactive-movie-like, and see if there is a line that can be drawn between the two.
Imagine a video game where you control the plot, where your actions and choices have a direct effect on the storyline (the Mass Effect series obviously springs to mind). Now if you minimised the actual playable part of the game and fleshed out the cut scenes to the majority of the playing time... then we're getting closer to the interactive POV movie outlined above. If this game was stereoscopic 3D and playing on a virtual reality headset with depth perception abilities (such as this one I've invented), then what we have is a 3D film with interactive game play. Now lets reel the game-play back even further. Lets say you have no control over what your character does... aside from half a dozen lines of dialogue a with multiple choices. You can't choose where you walk or what you do but the film/game is constantly interactive in that you can look around. You can turn your head 180 degrees and can choose at which depth you wish to focus (thanks to the aforementioned genius headset).  The resulting experience would be like a dream where you can't really control what's going on but everything around you is completely real. Imagine being Mr (insert colour here) in Reservoir Dogs. You'd have other character talking directly to you (or even punching/shooting you!) You could effectively watch a film from any character's point of view. Again, I'm not saying remake this film and re-shoot it from all perspectives. It's just an example of what can be done. This version of the game/film crossover can be filmed on real cameras (albeit ones with a 180 degree panorama and a large depth of field).

For the above to become a reality, the 'VR headsets in every home' dream will have to become a reality. It will be a gradual thing, but it will be the video-games market that will make this reality... err, a reality. Then we can have fun with interactive films.  Until then, films can still be 2D on a flat screen with a modicum of interaction.

Like I say, a game (or a movie) does not have to be shot from someone's point of view. It doesn't have to be completely interactive. There's a sliding scale between traditional games and traditional cinema. There is no clear dividing line. You could have a traditional movie experience in 2D, but still have decisions to make. The decisions could have been made before the film starts giving the viewer a totally passive experience again. On the other hand the 'film' could be shot with a completely virtual camera à la Avatar. It could be stereoscopic, photo realistic, 360 degree-spanning, first-person perspective at 48fps with the largest interactive depth of field, surround sound and total control over what you say and do in the virtual environment. How the hell you going to tell this from the real world? 

With the above tools, a director has more choices to make about the end product. Just when you thought that all movie plots had been done before, that every film has been sequeled, prequeled, remade and rebooted... Jon goes and puts a whole plethora of other options on the table. The possibilities for interactive movies are endless, and I predict they'll make the home entertainment industry interesting again in a way that 3D digital cinema could never imagine.

NotAGenius Interactive Stereoscope ... (3D Trifle part 2)

Finally I'm prepared to reveal to the world my genius virtual reality headset concept. It's a new VR headset that will revolutionise gaming and home cinema.... and it's so ingeniously simple, an idiot could've invented it. Ladies and gents, I give you ... the NotAGenius-Interactive-Stereoscope! 

Ok, rubbish title. But it's the idea that counts.

The new Sony* VR headset
(for illustrative purposes only - My concept is nothing like this. Probably)

The problem with existing virtual reality systems is that no matter how good the graphics and smooth the animation, it's still not quite as real as reality. One of the reasons for this is focal points. In the real world when you look at something in the distance, close up objects in your peripheral vision go out of focus. Likewise when you focus on an object close up, your distance vision is out of focus. In the virtual world either everything is in sharp focus (regardless of it's depth), or the programmer/director who created the environment has told the viewer at which level they are to look at, by forcing specific depths in to focus (you can see this in any modern 3D movie). My new interactive VR headset will remove this choice from the game/film creator and puts it back in the hands (or head) of the viewer. For example you will be able to play a first-person VR game where you can focus at any depth. The depths that you are not looking at go out of focus: This makes the users VR experience all the more realistic.

So how does it work?

It's as simple as the vacant expression that currently adorns your face. Inside the headset there are 2 little cameras looking though the screens to see each eye. Each camera can see at exactly which point on the screen the eye is looking at. From this input the system creates instantaneous meta-data that feeds into the output of the headset. The stereo picture that you see is altered instantly and accordingly to put the correct depth of field on to whatever you are viewing at the time. Not only will the system know what you're looking at by the position of an individual eye, but it will also take the position of both eyes giving convergence data that will corroborate the correct focal depth used when viewing a 3D image within the headset. These readings will be taken at least 48 times per second. Obviously everyones eyes are different, so a calibration needs to be done for each user. This only needs to be done once though, as settings can be saved and reloaded every time someone different uses the same headset.

But how can the little cameras see though the screens?

I'm glad you asked. The solution is as simple as simplicity itself, if simplicity had been personified, lobotomised, and christened Boris. The cameras doesn't actually look through the screens but through a two-way mirror. This mirror is at a 45 degree angle and the actual screens (above and perpendicular to the viewers line of vision) are reflected in the mirror. The inclusion of such a mirror in the headset (when shaped correctly) also allows for the appearance of a larger screen further away as opposed to a smaller screen close up. As people find it more difficult to view screens close up, this is another reason that makes the as yet un-patented NotAGenius Interactive Stereoscope headset more comfortable on the eye.

But that's not all!

Oh no sir. For with this new technology it will be possible to create 3D feature films where the viewer can choose what he/she is looking at.


Whatchu talkin' 'bout, genius?

Well I'll tell you. Just like this new technology will make a video gaming experience even more real and interactive, similarly it will make a movie watching experience more real and yes, interactive. Imagine a film where the main action is in the foreground. Perhaps two people are talking in a bar. If there is nothing relevant happening in the back of this shot then the director will only focus on the people talking. With my new system a viewer (having seen the film already and bored with the foreground actors dialogue) can focus on whatever that non-speaking extra is doing in the back of the shot. It'll be like you're there. You can choose what you're looking at. Obviously such films will have to be specially made with a very long depth of field in order for every depth to be viewable.


So what use is it?

A writer/director of such a movie can put hidden 'easter egg' elements in their films. Be it a passing character or vehicle in the background that turns up later in the film or perhaps there is some background action that will only occur to you to focus on from the second time that you see the film. Also if you've got one of those movies by the likes of David Lynch,... you know the ones. The movies that don't really make any sense. Well you can have more 'clues' throughout the film. More depth, more clues, more weirdness for fanboys to discover, that not everyone will get, and then argue about on internet forums for decades to come. It opens up a whole new way of creating cinema. Cinema that's 3D, viewed within a headset, interactive, with hidden elements. Not only that but the interactiveness blurs the lines further between video games and movies. But more on that at a later date.


* Incidentally, if anyone at Sony or any rival company should like to employ my genius brain and make this genius idea a genius reality, please get in touch. I am looking for a more practical outlet to hone my ideas, and there's plenty more ingenuity where this came from.

Hooked to the Silver Screen ... (3D Trifle part 1)

There were always advantages of viewing a film at the cinema: You can see it in wide screen, in complete surround sound and in 3D (if available). Pretty much like in your living room then? Viewing the same film at home on a top-of-the-line home cinema set-up can rival a theatre experience; you can watch a film on blu-ray on an HD screen, in the correct aspect ratio, in 7.1 surround and also in 3D.

With every advance the cinema has taken, the home cinema has soon caught up. Although I will admit that regardless the size of your television, it still doesn't beat actually going to the cinema. A real cinema experience (particularly one utilising actual film projection) has always been preferential to spending a night in front of your TV.

This is why I'm slightly saddened to report that this will no long be the case. ...in the near future.

Yes, this soothsaying genius has predicted the collapse of film industry funding. Ever rising tickets prices and an increasingly better quality of home cinema will cause more and more cinema to close in the future. The film industry won't die though thanks to blu-ray and film download sales, and the video games market. (more on this later).

The clear advantage of a cinema experience over watching a film in your living room was you can see it in 3D. Well now you can do so at home, but there's still the problem that you have to wear 3D glasses to do so. This will always be the case in the cinema, but at home there are a couple of technologies for 3D television that have not yet been mass marketed to the masses. If I were cynical I would suggest that this is because the folks in the industry don't want the 3D home experience to be better than that of the cinema. Lenticular, glasses-free TVs have already been produced, some to greater success than others. I personally am holding off buying a 3DTV for the day when the 3D technology is perfected enough to warrant the extortionate price I'll inevitably have to pay. ...And that day's not far off. The 3DTV industry has to move as one though; we can't have a variety of different technologies out there... (technically we can, but why waste all that extra bandwidth and conversion technology).

There is one obvious aspect of looking at an object in real life that differs from that of a 3D object on a screen, and that is focal point. I talking about creating movies more interactive (and this is where the crossover into video games territory comes in).

In real life you look round a room and your eyes focus on something. Look at something in the foreground and then something in the background. You can bring both into focus, but you can't focus on both at once. Ever since Orson Welles popularised the effect of deep focus in Citizen Kane, films have looked amazing artistically, but less realistic compared to how we see things in real life. Wouldn't it be marvellous to view a 3D film in which your focal length changes depending on which depth you're looking at? Well I've designed just such a device to do that. It won't change the way we view films in general, but it will make the 3d home cinema experience a lot more immersive and therefore more realistic. The same technology could however completely revolutionise the games industry.

Orson Welles, showing off in sharp focus in the background. (Citizen Kane, 1941)

More details on this genius invention at a later date. For now I need to look into whether anyone else has had the same idea. Surely some other genius will have thought up the same thing independently. But that's only an assumption; therefore I wouldn't want to reveal any details too soon.

THIS IS THE NEWWWWWWS!!!

I've done a new painting. Based on a still from the Edgar Wright film Hot Fuzz.
You can find Honk Honk amongst the rest of the shit in the Arts Hole.
It's for sale by the way. If you'd like this one-off 12x12" painting, make me an offer.




COMING SOON...
...To a genius blog near you.  ...(This one.)

NEW INVENTION
My latest idea that will revolutionise home cinema and gaming.

GRAVITY PART IV
I unlock more of the mystery surrounding this non-force force, whilst contradicting much of what I've said in Gravity Part I.

and...
SUNFLOWER: REDUX
I'll be re-finishing my second painting and uploading the results. You can tell me which version you prefer.   ...Although not that it really matters (there is no 'undo' button when you're painting.)

ALSO
Also, I'll be solving London Soho's traffic congestion problems in possibly the most genius (and expensive) way possible.... and revealing an alternative (and probably unprovable) theory as to the origin of mass in the universe.


Y'all have a good Coca-Cola sponsored secular winter festival. I'll be back in the new year.

Jon.

Lasered Eyes

So last week I had my eyes lasered.

It's something I've been thinking about for some time. I won't bore you with details, suffice to say that my vision was pretty much my only sense that I wasn't happy with. (I actually have an incredible sense of smell and taste... I'm what people describe as a supertaster.)

Anyhoo, after shopping around I settled on a laser clinic that seemed professional enough and surgeon that I was happy with (as well as a price I was happy with).

Getting your eyes cut by a laser can be quite scary. The actual procedure is painless, but the build up can be a little nerve wrecking. I don't mind telling you, I was bricking it in the waiting room.

It occurred to me whilst staring at the lights in surgery with the eye clamp on, that it would be a good idea to know what you're in for before you actually get it done. It would be good to see the laser experience on video.... but to my knowledge, no-one has made such a video.

I'm not talking about some CGI version of what happens to your eye during surgery. Nor do I think it's a good idea to see footage of an actual eye operation before you get yours done. (Warning: If you plan to ever get you eyes lasered, DO NOT watch the linked video! It'll freak you right out. - not least cos it looks like they used blade technology to remove the flap).

What I'm talking about a POV video. If someone made a video documenting the eye surgery process from the perspective of the patient then no -one would have any worries. The audio on the video can be from an actual operation, and the footage created using the actual LASIK laser looking down on the camera with a perspex/polythene "eye" mounted above it. Everything else (eye clamp, laser movement, surgeon applying drops and removing/replacing the flap) should be repeated for this fake camera eye exactly as it is done in an actual operation. There's an array of white, red and a single green light/LED that you stare at. Once your drops are in, you view goes a bit blurry. Then when you flap is peeled back, everything is even more diffused. It looks kind of trippy... like an unused scene from 2001: A Space Odyssey.

Watching such a video, looking at the pretty colours whilst listening to a calming surgeons voice will be reassuring. It's a genius idea and would definitely make laser eye surgery more appealing for nervous people. It'll be certainly better than viewing the video I link to above. ... Go on, watch it. I dare you. I double dare you.

After Surgery

Initially I lost an outer layer of cells from my right eye. Whereas my left was near perfect straight away.

Ten days later and my left eye now has 20/12 vision (that's nearly twice as good as 20/20). My right is still fairly blurry, but I'm told it'll be great within a few weeks. It'll be awesome! In the meantime, I'm like a really shit super hero with half a superpower. 

Other such ridiculous semi-superpowers include my aforementioned ability to taste subtle flavours better than most people, the ability to go translucent, and the ability to fly (but limited to a walking-pace and only few inches off the ground). I've yet to acquire the last two half-arsed special powers, but should I do so, I will devout my life to fighting crime... some of the time. Well... occasionally. You know, if it happens to be going on near me. ...I won't go out of my way or anything. In fact if someone was robbing a shop I happen to be in I might make an effort to put a stop to it. ...maybe. ....I mean I might not. But maybe I'll at least hinder their escape. Probably. If I thought it was safe to do so. Otherwise I'd get out of their way. I mean, I wouldn't help them escape or anything.... unless they forced me. And I certainly won't be committing any actual crimes myself. ...Not often anyway. (unofficial video/music downloads and copyright infringement don't really count, yeah?) 

...And from then on I will be known as...FAIRLY-GOOD-BLOKE!

 

Incidentally, if anyone out there also has any actual useless semi-crap superpower, you're welcome to join my team of lazy-bastard superheroes The Non-Credibles.

Trolls!

 

Aaaagh! Trolls!?

Yeah, that's right kids. Trolls. Big beastly human-esque creatures, famous for hiding under bridges, eating children and billy-goats. They turn to stone in daylight, help orcs attack hobbits, are generally known for living on the end of pencils in the 1980's and have florescent pink hair.

Well now they're back.... in cinemas this week with the Norwegian release Troll Hunter.

"Whoa there Jon!" I hear you cry, "Are you now utilising your genius blog for film reviews?!"

Well no. I've not even seen the film yet. (Although I intend to catch it this week, I hear it's quite good). 

My trolls will be a cross between this
hideous ornament (but with a smaller nose)
and the more traditional troll image below.

I only bring it up as it reminds me of a film idea I had in 2006. It had a similar title ('Trolls') and was intended to be a supernatural suspense horror. After reading a Troll Hunter review I'm fairly convinced that my film is not at all similar. But it got me thinking that Hollywood will want to remake it. And then other troll ideas will come out of the woodwork. I'm sure other people have scripts involving trolls, but my point is that when I thought up my film 5 years ago, the troll phenomenon was a sub-genre that had yet to be tapped. (and no, I'm not counting the ridiculously terrible 80's flick Troll or it's hilarious, even worse, so-bad-it's-good, non-troll-related sequel Troll 2).

So I include here a brief synopsis of what my film is about, just so that when a similar movie does turn up on the big screen
(- and I'm sure it will, it's not just me out there with genius ideas you know), then you can believe me when I tell you I'd thought that idea up already.


A family (dad and two kids; Scott and Amy ages 6 and 9) move to a new neighbourhood. A country village. The mum died a year ago... of... well, of something. ...Let's just say she was tree surgeon, who one day had a fatal accident with a chainsaw. So a year later the family move (for his job) to a remote town... (always a remote town). I've not decided where yet. Initially I was thinking somewhere in deepest darkest Shropshire, Britain, or possibly somewhere in the US or Canada... but given our subject matter, it should really be set somewhere in Scandinavia. For the trolls in this tale will be the traditional folklore ones. They're 8 to 12 ft tall and as scary as shit.



The pre-titles sequence has a lone troll wandering a riverbank at night. There is a lone fisherman doing a bit of night fishing (like you do). There's a troll POV shot, some swearing, screaming and some unpleasantness involving arms being torn from their sockets.Then titles.

Like most title credit sequences, we need to set the scene by having a sequence of helicopter shots of the family driving to their new town on a lovely sunny day.*

Near the start of the film, the dad (or perhaps the child-minder) is reading the youngest a bedtime story of The Three Billy Goats Gruff. (There is also reference to the cheeky colourful haired trolls in the child's bedroom.)

*Although it might be a nice idea to have it overcast/raining at the start of the film for a change. And only have sun where the plot requires it (kids playing in the woods).

So the first troll encounter comes the next afternoon. The kids are playing in a small wood next to the house. They find what they assume are statues or gargoyles half buried with mud and leaves (it's autumn). They also meet another local kid (Ross) in the wood. Ross swears he'd been playing in the wood throughout the summer but never saw these statues before. Perhaps someone dumped them there recently? They agree to meet up the following day at the statues.

Next day they meet up the by the statues. They're in more or less the same place, but it looks like someone had moved the positions a little. Then the discover the shapes/poses were somewhat different. 

It's getting late and starting to get dark, so they agree to meet tomorrow after school and the siblings head back to the house for their dinner. Ross hangs around playing with near the 'statues' with a stick ...or something (you know what kids are like). Ross is sat on the ground digging in the dirt with his back to us. We see the stone troll in the foreground right (and out of focus) begin to move. The child is oblivious...

Cut to next day. Monday morning. The kids join their new classes. There's a spare seat in Amy's class.... where Ross usually sits. He's reportedly missing.

That afternoon the police are round the school to ask the kids and their dad (who conveniently works there) questions about when they last saw Ross. Later Amy shows her dad and the police where they were playing... but the statues had disappeared. She says she thinks it was here. Then finds 'Ross Rules' written in the mud.   ... Then evidence of blood. The police declare it a crime scene. and the dad says he doesn't want his kids to play outside any more. So ends the first act of the film.

So you can see where this is going.  It's kind of obvious. The film practically writes itself. Perhaps it's not such a genius idea after all, but I'm surprised no one has done it already.

The second act has more killings (children and adults) but usually individuals on their own. There's an incident with a dog walker and their dog (ref: Jonesy the Cat's finest moment in Alien). It'll also feature some survivor sightings where people have got away. Initially they will be children telling adults of what they've seen (and adults inevitably not quite believing them), but eventually the dad and the cool local cop team up and it becomes a buddy movie.

Final act. It being the countryside, lots of people have shotguns and a group get together to hunt down this troll and kill it. They set a trap. But the troll doesn't fall for it. A couple of deaths later and they've got it. Dead.

Then what might otherwise be a nice epilogue has another troll sighting the next evening. The kids remember seeing at least 6 stone trolls in the wood. but as they don't know their current hide-out, the cop and dad and other troll fodder find one and keeping their distance follow it back to it's new den. It's still nighttime. All the trolls are there and then the humans are surrounded. There is violence. death. blood. gore, and things of that nature... generally. Whether one or two (or any) of our heroes survive the battle, the trolls turn to stone by sun up. And the authorities arrive to either a) get a pneumatic drill on their collective asses, b) blow them up with explosives or c) load one of them into a giant metal crate for future study. 

Unless option c above happens then I'll also have evidence to the viewer that they've missed one... a little further away from the others: One troll's stone hand is barely visible having buried himself in the ground. Roll credits. Commission sequel.

I've told a couple of people of this idea since, but one in particular who I worked with was an amateur film maker (when I knew him in 2008) who one day out of the blue just said to me 'Jon, have you any ideas for a good horror film?'... So I told him. He started taking notes. Then I said 'You're gonna steal my idea aren't you?'. He didn't answer he just smiled. I then said that I probably wasn't going to make the film myself  and asked that if he did, to give me a creative credit on the film.... No promises were made. I wish I could remember his name.

So if you're a film director/producer & you'd like a stab at this cinematic gem of genius, then be my guest. But please let me know or at least credit me for the concept. Ok, so the basic story structure is ripped off of M Night Shyamalan's Signs, except with trolls instead of aliens, but that's hardly original. In case you were wondering, also borrowed are ideas from Arachnophobia, Invaders From Mars, and any number of Stephen King films.

Scary as fuck.

Fate and Fiction.

This week I have been mostly thinking about the future.... and the past. And on thinking of these things I was also forced to consider thoughts about concepts of the present, fate, determinism, immutability and causality.*

In this particular blog I would like to answer some of the bigger questions out there about the universe and time. Does fate exist?... if so, can you change the future or is it as unchangeable as the past. Is time itself a human constructed concept? and does it even exist?

I was gonna give my genius spin on the subject of fate, choice and alternative realities anyway, but this week I saw the wonderful new movie by Zowie Bowie (Duncan Jones to you), Source Code. Without spoiling too much, it has Donnie Darko continually going back to 8 minutes before a train explodes. And he changes things.... He doesn't however change anything in his reality, but it's implied that every time something different happens to the original time-line, the consequences are played out in an alternative reality. I'm sure we all know how this works already; It's explained often enough in science fiction.

But is it only science fiction? Or are alternative realities actually as real as this one?

I think so. It is after all, the only way to explain away the riddle of fate and choice (which is what this blog was meant to be about in the first place).

Let's look at the alternative: A universe where multiple/infinite realities don't exist; where our reality is the only version, and there is only one sequence of history.

In such a universe, two more choices exist:

1. The future doesn't exist and is therefore changeable. The only possible version of events in our non-deterministic universe are dictated by the choices we all make. This would be the perfect scenario for the way time works, were it not for the fact that in theory, time travel backwards is possible, and in fact time travel forward is also possible. This is because time runs at different relative speeds for an object travelling at speed compared to the relative space it travels through. So in a universe where you can go forward and back in time (and potentially change things to what was going to/supposed to happen), it's possible to create a paradox. (What if Marty had actually been a bit sick, and continued to date his mum?! He'd never exist to threaten his own existence)
2. The future already exist and is therefore unchangeable. Again even if time-travel was impossible, it implies that the future is set, and nothing... nothing we do can ever change it. Personally I don't like this idea. It means that fate exists and that we're not in charge of our own destiny. Again in this version of events, if you had prior knowledge to what was going to happen, this would create a paradox.

The only way an impossible paradox is avoided is if the changes made to any time-line create an alternative reality.

But then there's the argument that if we occupy one of these infinite number of realities, and we're just one universe that happened in a specific way, then that implies that again we're fatefully destined to live out that specific version of history. Well I don't buy into this. If we are living in one of an infinite number of realities where the future already exists and only one version of events can happen, then I'm certain that the one version of events that we occupy fluctuates every time a conscious decision (or unconscious action) is made by any life-form on the planet. For every choice that is made, our universe becomes a new version of itself. Yes, we are living within a single reality amongst an infinite sea of realities. But we decide which one we're living in.

The future is not set.

*I don't know the meaning of at least one of these words.

The Hoverboard

I came up with a (very) rough plan for this a few years ago, and recently a friend of mine (Hello Liz! *waves*) reminded me of this genius idea.

While the means of hover/propulsion have changed in my head several times and this is still very much a work in progress, I figured it was time to state on these pages how a Hoverboard might actually work. ... after all, it's 2011 already that gives us less than 4 years to come up with the goods.

I assume that hover-boards work using the same technology that let cars fly (again, only 4 years to go... come on people!) But I'm sure a flying skateboard is easier to design than a flying Delorean.

So what lifts it off the ground? ...First I thought how about jets of air? … This would basically make it a mini hovercraft but without the skirt. (which really wouldn't make it very effective or stable.)

Ok...Plan 2. How about magnetism? On the base of the board are powerful electro-magnets. This makes more sense to me. It would require there to be a similar magnetic force on/under the ground to that the board is repelled from the earth. The power of the boards electro-magnets can be turned on or off instantly, and perhaps there are sensors on the top of the board so that it knows how heavy the user is (like electronic scales), and therefore adjusts the power of the magnets accordingly... Or maybe even simpler, there are detectors on the underside of the board that tell it how far it is from the ground when it's switched on (these can be lasers or an infra-red beam reflected back to the board) so that the power is automatically adjusted to keep the board a set distance from the ground, regardless of it's user. The magnets would have to be directioned at all angles including up, otherwise the board would instantly flip over as soon as you turn it on.

I've probably not thought of everything, but I'm pretty sure that it would definitely work. The only problem being that it requires polarised magnets under the floor everywhere that you want to hoverboard.... That and the small probability that the invention will turn out to be a death trap.... but hey, let's deal with one problem at a time.

Does anyone think the idea's developed enough yet to sell to Mattel?