Well, today’s artwork was a bit of a failed experiment at trying to create a piece of digital art that looked like a mid-1990s first-person shooter game, using only the tools in this open-source graphics program.
As usual, this picture is released under a Creative Commons BY-NC-ND licence.
“FPS Game 1995” By C. A. Brown
Well, it’s the end of the month and this means that it’s time to do my usual thing of collecting a list of links to the ten best articles about art, writing etc… that I’ve posted here over the past month (plus a couple of honourable mentions too).
All in all, this month’s articles turned out fairly well – not to mention that, although I’m still using a slower production schedule (but, thanks to a large pre-made “buffer” of articles, articles still appear here daily), I’ve managed to get back up to preparing about four articles/reviews a week.
In terms of reviews, this month was fairly interesting. At the beginning of this month, I reviewed the final novel (Joan D. Vinge’s excellent 1980s sci-fi epic “The Snow Queen“) in my extended 1-2 year series of book reviews. Yes, I hope to get back into reading again at some point in the future, but I need a break from books for a while. To my surprise, I also ended up reviewing a computer game – the brilliantly fun “Saints Row: The Third” – this month too, despite not originally planning to.
Still, I focused most on film reviews this month and ended up reviewing twelve films. My favourites were probably: “Suspiria (1977)”, “Only Lovers Left Alive“, “Citizen Kane“, “Turtles Are Surprisingly Fast Swimmers“, “Star Wars IV: A New Hope (Original theatrical version)” and “Ghost Ship“.
Anyway, here are the lists 🙂 Enjoy 🙂
Top Ten Articles – June 2020:
– “How To Create A CRT Television Effect (Using Open-Source Software)”
– “In Defence Of Slow Pacing In Novels And Films”
– “Four Reasons Why People Enjoy “High-Brow” Creative Works”
– “Some Very Basic Tips For Making Monochrome Art”
– “Three Things Horror Movies Can Teach Us About Writing Gruesome Horror Fiction (That Is Actually Scary)”
– “Four Tips For Making Art Using MS Paint 5.1”
– “Three Thoughts About Taking A Break From Reading Novels”
-“Three Things Horror Writers Can Learn From A Horror Game”
– “Three Ways To Learn New Image Editing Techniques”
– “Why Worldbuilding Matters More Than Story”
Honourable Mentions:
– “Art Set In The Early-Mid 2000s: A Visual Guide”
– “The Stages Of Making A Painting (GIF, Static Image and Plain Text versions)”
Well, due to hot weather and tiredness, today’s artwork is a monochrome digitally-edited drawing (rather than a full painting), based on this photo I took in Chalton last July.
As usual, this drawing is released under a Creative Commons BY-NC-ND licence.
“Chalton – Church” By C. A. Brown
Since I was in the mood for a “high-brow” film, I thought that I’d take a look at Orson Welles’ 1941 film “Citizen Kane”. This is a film that I’ve heard a lot of praise about over the years and which has been referenced and parodied a ridiculous number of times. It is often regarded as a classic. So, I was curious about whether it was actually as good as people say that it is.
And, luckily, this film’s fame and reputation meant that it was fairly easy to find a reasonably cheap second-hand DVD of it 🙂 Seriously, this wasn’t the first “high-brow” film that I’d thought of watching – but all of the others I found during my search seemed to be way more expensive than I’d expected. Seriously, book publishers regularly reprint both public domain and copyrighted “classics” in affordable formats. The film industry is really missing something here.
Anyway, let’s take a look at “Citizen Kane”. Needless to say, this review will contain some SPOILERS (yes, you probably already know the famous twist, but I’ll be explaining why it is so dramatic etc…)
The film begins with some ominous shots of a large gated mansion on a hill. Then we see an old man called Charles Kane (Orson Welles) dying alone inside one of the bedrooms. In his final moments, he drops a snow globe and utters the word “Rosebud”. Moments later, a nurse arrives to cover up his body.
When the film starts like this, you can probably guess that it isn’t a “feel good” movie…
We are then treated to a jaunty 5-10 minute newsreel about the life of Charles Kane. A newsreel that shows his life as a powerful newspaper magnate, his unsuccessful attempts to enter politics, his troubled love life, the building of his opulent “Xanadu” mansion, his meetings with some well-known people of the time (including a very evil one), a mixture of public opinions about him, hints about his influence on history etc…
When the newsreel finishes, we see that it is being watched in the gloomy offices of a magazine. The editor tells the assembled journalists that he doesn’t think that the newsreel really tells the whole story about Kane. And, remembering the stories he’s read in the press about Kane’s mysterious last words (presumably overheard by the nurse outside the room), the editor asks several of his journalists to interview people who knew Kane, in order to work out who or what “Rosebud” was…
It’s a film about journalists researching a journalist. This is wonderfully meta 🙂
One of the first things that I will say about this film is that, whilst it takes a little while to really become compelling, I can easily understand why it is a revered classic.
Or, to put it another way, when I started watching it, I initially thought “This is hilariously corny and old-fashioned” but, by the end, I was glued to the screen and quite literally moved to tears by parts of it. Yes, this film is a bit of a slow burn at times and it requires you to pay attention and to think in the same way that you would if you were reading a novel, but – like a good novel – it is well worth paying attention.
And, yes, this film should be compared to a novel. There is unreliable narration, complex character-focused storytelling, a frame story, moral ambiguity, deep ideas expressed in clever ways and all sorts of other stuff which you might not expect to find in an old-school Hollywood film. Even the structure of the film – a man’s life story pieced together from the memories of others – is almost novelistic in some ways, with the film quite literally consisting of people telling stories. If you are used to reading novels, then you’ll really enjoy this film or at least “get” what it is trying to do.
Likewise, this is a “slow paced” film by film standards, but moderately-paced by novel standards.
It also has a level of thematic complexity that might surprise you too. It is a film about journalism, about the corrupting influence of wealth, about fame, about power (and it’s limits), about unreliability, about life, about death, about loneliness, about truth – but, most of all, about memory. Not only is it a film about how we all live on in the fragmented and unreliable memories of other people, but one of the most powerful and tragic moments of the film is when we learn that Kane’s final memory is of the innocent days before he became wealthy.
Yes, pretty much everyone knows that “Rosebud” is a sled, but when you actually see the film, you’ll understand why it’s such a significant and emotionally-powerful twist. It’s the thing Kane was carrying in the moment before he was adopted by a wealthy banker, the thing he was carrying the last time he saw his mother etc…
Yes, it might be one of the most well-known plot twists in history. But, when I actually saw it in context, it was such a powerful moment that I suddenly burst into tears.
All of these themes are handled through some of the best and most complex characterisation that I’ve ever seen in a film. It is practically novelistic. Not only do we see Kane’s journey from an idealistic and irreverently cynical young man to a bitter and lonely old eccentric, but all of this is presented in the kind of unvarnished – yet ambiguous – way that makes Kane feel like a complex three-dimensional person.
We see him at his best and at his worst, and everything in between. Unlike the newspaper that he runs, the film never leaps to judgement about him. Instead, the audience are left to make up their own mind and piece their conclusions together from the opinions of other people.
Although Kane is very much a tragic character – dying alone in an opulent palace built for a lover that he drove away – he is an extremely compelling one, whose life is filled with all sorts of contradictions and mistakes that make him feel real. His flaws and inconsistencies make him more than a typical movie character. He’s someone who writes a manifesto about truth, yet runs a scandal-filled tabloid newspaper, yet also upsets his opera-singer lover by “truthfully” completing a critical review of one of her concerts that a drunken critic has left unfinished. Yet, after this, the critic then implies that he’s abandoned his principles. It is these moments, these many contradictions, that make him such a fascinating and realistic character.
Likewise, Kane also thoroughly and completely contradicts the second point of his manifesto in the way he treats many other characters throughout the film.
Kane certainly isn’t a “likeable” character by any stretch of the imagination, but he comes across as deeply human because of everything we see about him – and, more importantly, everything we don’t. One of the most interesting omissions in this film is the time gap between the sullen child Kane was when he was adopted and the cheerful, yet deeply cynical, twentysomething he becomes a decade or two later.
By not really showing this phase of his life, the film leaves it at least slightly ambiguous whether his flaws were inherent in him or whether the circumstances of his life drove him to become the bitter, lonely and controlling person that he is at his death. His nostalgia for the past implies the latter, but almost everything we actually see of him implies the former.
And, to reflect all of these contradictions and ambiguities, the film itself is structured in an unusual way. Not only is a lot of the story told through flashbacks that aren’t always in chronological order (though this never really gets confusing) and filtered through the perspective of several different characters, but even the “authoritative” newsreel at the beginning of the film – which a magazine editor later says isn’t the whole story – contains a brilliantly contradictory montage scene showing one person denouncing Kane as a communist and another person denouncing him as a fascist before Kane describes himself as an American (and, yes, the film can be read as a critique of all three ). Even the structure of this film is designed to make you think for yourself and come to your own conclusions.
For example, this front page initially seems like a “plot spoiler” when it appears in the newsreel but we later see the full context behind it, which calls into question the reliability of the newsreel.
Yes, all of this ambiguity requires you to pay attention to the film and actually think about what you see, but it results in a deeply compelling and powerful experience that is almost like reading a really good novel. Even though some parts of the film certainly show their age, this film’s focus on complex, naturalistic and ambiguous characterisation makes it pretty much timeless.
Not only is it a very unique and creative film, but it’s many points about the pitfalls of power could easily be seen as a satire of modern celebrities, politicians, journalists, “influencers”, corporations etc.. in the same way that the film was probably intended to be in the 1940s.
Visually, this film is spectacular. Not only are there lots of fascinatingly detailed and/or opulent locations, but there are also numerous clever uses of lighting, composition and perspective that really add a lot of visual interest to everything.
Likewise, the fact that this film is in black and white not only gives it a really interesting “film noir”-style look (which is another genre that focuses heavily on complexity, moral ambiguity etc…), but it also helps to leave a lot more to the audience’s imaginations too. Whilst colour film was around at the time, this film really wouldn’t “work” in colour. Amongst other things, the “unrealistic” look of the B&W film adds a lot to the film’s themes of unreliable memory and ambiguity.
The set design in parts of this film is absolutely amazing 🙂
Although this isn’t a “film noir”, it certainly does a good impression of one at times.
The film’s lighting design is utterly superb too. Not only does the B&W film really help to add an extra level of drama to the lighting but this film was also apparently one of the influences on the amazing lighting design in “Blade Runner”. Need I say more than that?
Do you like our owl?
Musically, this film is interesting. One of the most memorable musical moments is a jaunty music hall song (later parodied in “The Simpsons”) that is commissioned to celebrate Kane’s leadership of the paper. Not only does this scene emphasise the sheer size of Kane’s ego (and how powerful he thinks he is) but, in an absolutely genius move, an instrumental version of it is played over the ending credits just after the poignantly tragic ending.
All in all, this film is a classic for a reason. Yes, it takes a little while to really become compelling and some parts are a bit old-fashioned, but – as a whole – it is a timeless and extremely powerful film. It’s a film that has the thematic depth and complex characterisation of a novel, which does some really creative stuff with the medium and which also looks absolutely spectacular on a visual level too. If you can handle ambiguity (narrative, moral etc…), slower-paced storytelling and the idea of thinking for yourself, then this film is well worth a watch.
If I had to give it a rating out of five, it would get four and a half.
Well, although I hadn’t planned to make another parody cartoon, I ended up re-playing a few levels of “Duke Nukem 3D” during a spare moment and suddenly realised “That monster’s machine-gun arm must be ludicrously impractical in everyday life” and then the idea for this parody comic just kind of appeared.
Since this is a parody comic, it is NOT released under any kind of Creative Commons licence.
[CLICK FOR LARGER IMAGE] “Fan Art – 90s Videogame Monsters In Everyday Life” By C. A. Brown
Well, I thought that I’d talk about pacing today. In particular, why slow pacing in films and novels can actually be a good thing. Yes, the “right” type of pacing for any given story or movie will depend on a lot of different factors and there are good artistic reasons for using faster pacing sometimes. However, I thought that I’d talk about some of the benefits of slow pacing.
The first one is that it adds extra atmosphere to high-quality works. In novels, a slower pace gives the writer more time to describe interesting settings and characters in interesting ways. In films, a slower pace gives the audience more time to look at carefully-designed, well-lit and/or interesting set designs. By actually giving the audience time to drink in the atmosphere, not only does slower pacing immerse them more in the story but it adds an extra level of visual and/or narrative intrigue too.
However, as you’ve probably guessed from the previous paragraph, this only “works” in high-quality stories and films. For example, there’s a reason why the intricately-designed and highly-detailed set designs in a film like “Blade Runner” or “Only Lovers Left Alive” hold your interest during the slower-paced moments. They are beautiful works of visual art.
Likewise, the detailed and creative descriptions in a novel like Shirley Jackson’s “The Haunting Of Hill House” are interesting to read because they add an extra level of atmosphere to the story, which you’ll probably want to take your time to appreciate.
Secondly, slower pacing feels more “natural”. Yes, this is something that you’ll probably only really notice if you’ve read novels before (which are usually slower paced than films) but slower pacing in films gives the audience a much more realistic feeling of time passing. After all, real life is usually fairly “slow paced” when compared to the rushed “highlight reel” editing found in some popular films. Real life is filled with slower moments of waiting, thought etc… and, of course, time itself passes at a rate of one second per second.
So, slower pacing feels a lot more natural for the simple reason that it is a lot closer to “real time”. Not only does this make films and novels “flow” a lot better – with the story events having a much more logical feeling of progression to them, but it automatically adds a feeling of realism too. This is most noticeable in slow-paced films where, without the typical hyper-fast Hollywood editing, everything feels a little bit more “documentary-like”. Seriously, if you want to add a feeling of realism to a film and set it apart from a typical Hollywood movie, then slow pacing is your friend.
Thirdly, slower pacing gives the audience time to think. Whether it is the beautifully quiet moment when you sit back after reading a slow-paced segment of a novel and try to make sense of the complex descriptions and ideas you’ve just experienced or whether it is a quiet moment in a film that gives you time to consider the subtleties and nuances of what is happening on screen, slow pacing actually gives the audience time to think.
But, like with the first point on this list, this only works in high-quality creative works. In other words, the audience actually needs something to think about during the slow moments. Complex characters, subtle details, underlying themes, intriguing ambiguity, detailed worldbuilding, multi-layered plots etc… are all things that are enhanced by actually giving the audience time to think about them. However, if your story or film has the intellectual depth of a sheet of paper, then slow pacing will be off-putting to the audience.
Finally, slow pacing builds a stronger connection between the audience and a creative work. We live in a culture that values bingeing creative works and, yes there are benefits to this – blazing through a thriller novel or an entire season of a TV show in a single weekend is a really intense and exhilarating experience. It’s like a distilled shot of atmosphere and storytelling. But, one of the problems with binge-reading or binge-watching regularly is that everything starts to feel a little bit less significant. Reading a novel in two days is really fun. Reading a novel every two days eventually starts to feel a bit like a chore (and can eventually temporarily put you off of reading).
Slower-paced creative works are a lot more resistant to bingeing. A slow-paced novel will take more “sessions” to read than a fast-paced one, meaning that you’ll be returning to it a lot more times and will build more of a connection with the story. This type of novel will feel more like an old friend than just “the book I’m reading the moment”. Because a slow-paced novel can’t easily be finished in a couple of days, you might even have to take a few notes in order to keep up with the plot. Not only does this mean that you’ll be thinking about the story more, but it also means that you’ll remember it in much more detail too.
Likewise, whilst it is possible to binge-watch slower paced films and TV shows (since they have a fixed running time), there’s less incentive to do so. Because they don’t rely on ultra-fast editing and other such things to forcibly grab your attention and push you forwards, you have more of an option to take your time with them. To enjoy them at a more relaxing pace that actually gives you time to appreciate them and to anticipate your next experience with them. I mean, when TV shows aired weekly and films in a series were released months or years apart from each other, this sort of thing was pretty much standard.
But, like with almost everything on this list, this only “works” with high-quality stories, television and films. Because you can’t use “gripping” fast pacing to hold the audience’s attention, then you have to create something unique, interesting, atmospheric etc… enough that people will want to return to it without being pushed into doing so.
In conclusion, slower pacing is something that makes great creative works even better and bad creative works even worse. With slower pacing, there’s nowhere to “hide” any imperfections. So, when a slow-paced book or film is good, then it is usually really good.
————-
Anyway, I hope that this was useful 🙂
Well, due to hot weather and time reasons, today’s artwork is a slightly random piece of digital art.
As usual, this picture is released under a Creative Commons BY-NC-ND licence.
“Garden Room” By C. A. Brown
Well, I thought that I’d take a look at a film that I’ve been meaning to watch for quite a while. I am, of course talking about the 1995 sci-fi action movie “Virtuosity”.
If I remember rightly, I ended up finding this film back in either 2016 or 2017 when I was going through more of a cyberpunk phase than usual (and trying to find as many things in this genre as I could). Although I ended up getting a DVD of it back then, I got distracted by other stuff and it ended up languishing on my “to watch” pile until shortly before this review.
So, let’s take a look at “Virtuosity”. Needless to say, this review may contain some SPOILERS (and the film itself contains some FLICKERING LIGHTS, although I don’t know whether they’re fast/intense enough to cause a problem for some viewers).
The film begins with a uniformed policeman called Parker Barnes (Denzel Washington) and another cop getting off of a train in a city filled with eerily similar-looking businesspeople. They are looking for a suspect. As they run through the pristine streets, the walls distort slightly. When they find the suspect – Sid (Russell Crowe) – a frantic gun battle begins between them. However, things start to go wrong and Sid quickly gains the upper hand.
It is then revealed that this is a VR police training simulation, developed by a large tech company, that is currently undergoing testing on convicts before being put into service. One of the convicts dies from a brain overload after being killed by Sid – an A.I. program based on the personalities of history’s worst murderers – in the simulation. The police chief, who is watching the demonstration, orders the program to be shut down before Sid fries Parker’s brain too.
And, yes, there is dialogue about how there are supposed to be safety features in the program. Which Sid has somehow overridden.
Parker – an ex-cop who has been jailed for seventeen years after taking violent revenge on the person who murdered his family – is returned to prison. The prison’s cruel guards deliberately send him to a general wing of the prison where, as an ex-cop, he is hated by the prisoners. After winning a fight with a far-right hooligan who has been suspiciously let into the hallway between the cells, Parker is later interviewed by a criminal psychologist called Dr. Madison Carter (Kelly Lynch), who is researching a book.
Meanwhile, the head of the tech company has a conversation with Sid and – for some bizarre reason – decides to find a way to allow him to exist in the real world. After tricking a nanotechnology researcher with a seductive A.I. program called Sheila, the company boss substitutes Sheila’s program with Sid’s. When a robotic clone of Sid emerges from the incubation chamber, he kills the researcher and leaves the facility in order to carry out a series of ever more vicious and sadistic crimes.
The police need someone to deal with Sid. Since Parker was the only one who stood a chance against him in the simulation, they offer him a pardon in return for stopping Sid…
Reluctantly, he accepts it. After all, it would be a rather boring film if he didn’t.
One of the first things that I will say about this film is that it’s a reasonably fun and vaguely cyberpunk-influenced 1990s action movie. Imagine a mixture of “Demolition Man” and “Terminator 2”, but with a slightly lower budget and a slightly grittier atmosphere and this should give you some idea what to expect.
In terms of the film’s sci-fi elements, they’re fairly interesting in a retro-futuristic kind of way 🙂 This film is set in a very 1990s version of the future where realistic virtual reality, advanced fifty terabyte A.I. programs, data crystals, sophisticated bionic limbs and humanoid robots that can self-repair by absorbing glass into their bodies sit alongside CRT computer monitors, low-polygon CGI and old-school broadcast television. It’s a really interesting contrast and it gives the film a wonderfully ’90s atmosphere 🙂
There isn’t a single mobile phone in sight, but there are bulky video-screen payphones 🙂 I love 1990s sci-fi 🙂
Interestingly, this film uses the phrase “Interactive Sandbox” two years before the first “Grand Theft Auto” game was released.
Still, although the film takes some thematic influence from the cyberpunk genre – with self-aware A.I and amoral tech companies being major parts of the story – the film is probably more of an exploration of the nature of evil, infamy and narcissism. Throughout the film, Sid always wants a larger audience for his crimes (even going to the point of creating a TV show called “Death TV”) and, when watched today, it is hard not to see this as some kind of eerily prescient satire of the “attention economy”, social media in general etc….
But, given the controversies of the time, this was probably originally intended as more of a satire of violence in the media – with Sid giving a content warning about how “Death TV” is unsuitable for younger viewers, before cheerfully informing the rest of the audience that they won’t be able to look away. The film’s old-school satire of media violence also extends to the way that Sid often treats reality like a computer game and the way that at least one of his murders is shown to be a “copycat crime” based on an infamous serial killer.
But, saying this, this film is much more of an entertaining action film than a “serious” sci-fi movie. And, in this regard, it works really well. Not only does Parker have to deal with inner conflict about his past and obstructive bureaucracy, but Sid is also a suitably formidable adversary for him to fight too.
The film’s decision to allow Sid to heal by absorbing glass into his body creates a really good balance between making him an unstoppable Terminator-style villain and actually giving Parker a fighting chance against him.
Not to mention that the scenes where Sid heals are both hilarious and creepy at the same time.
Although this film contains some fairly dramatic and well-choreographed fight sequences and car chases, it’s probably slightly more of a suspense thriller in some regards. Throughout the film, Parker is playing a game of cat and mouse with Sid – with the balance of power between them shifting throughout the film. The film also adds to this by giving both characters very different motivations, with Parker wanting some way to either avenge his family’s death again and/or clear his name and Sid gleefully treating the whole thing like a game.
Again, this film came out two years before the first “Grand Theft Auto” game. So much for videogames being a “corrupting influence”.
Even though some of this suspense can get fairly predictable or cliched at times, it’s still really refreshing to see an action movie that focuses slightly more on a suspenseful premise and a carefully-calculated battle of wits between two characters in this age of hollow CGI spectacles.
Plus, unlike more modern and sanitised “PG-13” action movies, the fight scenes and car chases here actually have a bit of dramatic weight to them thanks to the fact that they make heavy use of practical effects and don’t really shy away from the painful emotional and physical consequences of violence.
Still, this film’s thriller elements do come at the expense of story to a certain degree. Yes, the film takes a bit of time to show us Parker’s tragic backstory and to give him some characterisation, but if you’re expecting a more contemplative or cerebral sci-fi thriller (like the original “Ghost In The Shell”), then you’re going to be disappointed. Not only are a few plot elements incredibly contrived, but the film’s pacing is slightly too fast too. Yes, it’s an action movie, but the film’s futuristic atmosphere and characterisation suffers slightly because of the relative paucity of slower-paced and more contemplative moments to counterpoint the frantic action and suspense.
Yes, there are some slower-paced and more serious character-based moments. But, not really as many as you might expect.
Plus, although this film tries to be a bit of a detective movie – with Parker and Madison visiting crime scenes and looking for clues about where Sid might be – this element of the film feels somewhat under-developed. Thanks to the faster pacing, they often seem to pretty much instantly work out the answers (which are always correct) without the kind of contemplative uncertainty and methodical investigation that makes the detective genre so compelling and suspenseful.
Yes, it’s good that the film shows Parker and Madison actually investigating crime scenes – but this is very much an action/thriller movie rather than a detective story.
As for the special effects, they’re reasonably good. Yes, the CGI effects look very old – but the film-makers made the sensible decision to only use them when absolutely necessary to the plot, allowing them to serve a narrative/dramatic purpose that helps to distract from their shortcomings.
Still, for the most part, this film makes use of timeless practical effects 🙂 Although the film’s action sequences feel very slightly more “low budget” than other blockbuster films from the age, they are still reasonably dramatic. Not to mention that the film’s practical effects are at their best during the more “sci-fi” moments – such as when Sid emerges from some kind of bio-pod after taking physical form.
The film’s effects are at their best when they are practical and sci-fi based.
And, even though the CGI looks really old, it still works because it is only used when absolutely necessary. Modern films take note of this!
As for the characters and acting, this film is really good. Although some story elements are rather cliched and stylised, the main cast handle the material really well. Denzel Washington plays an ex-cop with a morally-ambiguous past who is trying to get both redemption and revenge,with just the right mixture of tragic bitterness and sympathetic “goodness”. Kelly Lynch plays a fairly “realistic” psychologist/detective character and Russell Crowe plays Sid with cartoonishly villainous glee (which also helps to add some dark comedy to this rather gritty and serious film too).
The film’s set design and lighting is reasonably good too. The futuristic version of LA is kept fairly understated (basically just being 1990s LA, but with slicker architecture and a few well-placed pieces of “futuristic” tech), and the film also includes lots of the kind of gloomily industrial and gothic “futuristic” 1990s cyberpunk-style locations that are always fun to look at.
Although the futuristic version of LA looks a lot like 1990s LA…
…there are still some cool-looking 1980s/90s sci-fi style locations too 🙂
All in all, this is a fun action movie with a bit of a cyberpunk flavour to it. Yes, it’s slightly too fast-paced and a little bit cliched/predictable at times, but If you’re a fan of 1990s sci-fi or just want to see an action movie from a time before sanitised spectacle and over-used CGI became common, then this one might be worth watching.
If I had to give it a rating out of five, it would get a four.
Well, today’s digitally-edited painting is a slightly random “ancient ruins”-style one that I made to practice painting lighting/shading.
As usual, this painting is released under a Creative Commons BY-NC-ND licence.
“Ruins” By C. A. Brown
Well, it has been ages since I last posted an art-based “article”, so here is a visual guide to making art set in the early-mid 2000s.
I’d originally planned to write a proper article about this, but that didn’t really work out well (and kind of got side-tracked by lots of nostalgic rambling, rather than anything art-related) so I decided to go back to my original plan of drawing stylised examples of the types of technology, fashions etc.. that were popular back then, in case it is useful to anyone.
After all, this is an era of history that hasn’t quite entered popular nostalgia yet (in the way that the 1980s and 1990s have).
Anyway, here’s the guide:
[CLICK FOR LARGER IMAGE] “Art Set In The Early-Mid 2000s: A Visual Guide” by C. A. Brown
PekoeBlaze - the official blog 
