The Quest for Cash

Here is an article I wrote for the University of Waterloo's campus paper, IMPRINT, about my attempt (and failure) at getting bursaries.  Hope you enjoy, it is impregnated with movie references. 

Hollywood has drilled the idea of happy endings for any quest embarked upon by a main character.  From “The Quest for Fire” with primitive humanity to Shreks epic quest to save Princess Fiona - happy endings are what we are used to.  However, a happy ending was not waiting for me at the end of my quest for financial aid.  All that awaited me was wasted time, no solutions, and loss of respect for this University.

It all started over a month ago when I began filling out a bursary application, and realized after reading the first line, that alas I had not previously applied for OSAP assistance.  Not that this financially burdened hero (hero in my saga anyway) had not thought about it, on the contrary, I had put great thought into it.  As first year (I am now a second year scholar/hero) I applied for OSAP but was declined because I fell into that income bracket between, “I have more than enough money and can laugh at tuition costs” and “I don’t have nearly enough to even laugh at the price of my lunch”.  According to OSAP both my parents and I made too much and could effectively pay tuition.  However, when Residence fees alone takes 95% of your bank account what is left for tuition, and more importantly, alcohol!  Concordantly (Matrix, eat your heart out), I did not apply this year because everyone involved made more money and expenses were down.

Anyway, back to the quest for cash.  With no OSAP acceptance or rejection I discovered a line on the bursary form further down that stated, “If you did not apply for OSAP, please provide parents Notice of Assessments and proof of extenuating circumstances”.  It seemed to this hero that the first trial could be passed.  All I have to do is show with the Assessments that my parents made much more money and tell the administration my reasoning for the expected rejection.  With this victory under my Utility-less belt, I applied to Twenty-one different bursaries.  Some were UW’s, while others were corporate or volunteer based.  Content, I went back to studying and awaited the assistance sought by my quest.

Two weeks later I got my answer back…REJECTED; Failure to provide proof for not applying to OSAP.  I felt like Indiana Jones might feel if the Germans got both the Ark and the girl.  It seemed to me that my quest had failed.  However, not willing to accept defeat, I called a Financial Aid Counsellor to talk about this rejection and provide support for my stance of “Expected Rejection by OSAP”.  With an appointment three days hence, I called my parents again and asked them to take time out of their day (early morning no less) and bring me T4’s, pay stubs, notice of assessments (again), anything that could be used as weapons in my crusade against the administrations decision.  Lastly with a printout of my OSAP rejection (along with my financial projects for that year) and an expenses budget showing an expected $2000+ debt form school expenses alone, I went to my appointment.

Surely with all this proof, this hero could have triumphed…WRONG!  Upon entering the dragon’s lair, the belly of the beast (Needless Hell) I was rejected again in under two minutes.  I was told that rejection is not an extenuating circumstance (something that was not well defined on the form).  So to recap, I’ve now wasted hours of my time, and my parent’s time, preparing documentation for a defence that could have been rejected over the phone, or explained better on the form.  I was told that only parents refusing to sign OSAP forms or an allergy to paper and technology (actually the latter is made up out of frustration) classed as good reasons.

The bad guy has won, the fire was extinguished, the princess has died, and this hero has failed.  All because the University would much rather have students take government money that they have to pay back than to give them funds that have been allocated by themselves, alumni, corporations, etc. for students anyway.  These funds will not cause worry to students because they do not have to be paid back.  Bursaries sit unclaimed every year, and will again this year because of the apparent greed (seemingly to this hero) of the University to not give up more money.


Twenty-one bursaries applied to, one total and utter rejection.  While my faith in this University has fallen to the lowest it has ever been, my faith that students will never get a break has further been strengthened.  I should have gone to Mac; they offered at least a $750 scholarship. 

Lights, Camera....Problems with Action!

Alright so, this week I felt like writing an opinion piece, more specially, my thoughts on some common action movie issues.

The first major problem (especially in 007 movies) is that the bad guys always have such bad aim.  I mean seriously, is there no marksmanship criteria for henchmen?  What would happen if the first time Bond pops out from cover he gets killed with a head shot?  Or what is the German sniper in Enemy at the Gates got the Russian officer on the first attempt (now I admit I've never seen the movie completely, so I am partially guessing here)?  In fact, one of the only movies I can think about where the bad guy (we are initially lead to believe he's bad) has amazing marksmanship is Phone Booth.  Kiefer Sutherland plays a sniper who keep Colin Farrell trapped in a Phone Booth (creative name eh?).  In a good deal of action movies, the villains will run through entire clips and never once hit the protagonist, yet often with a single clip the protagonist can eliminate a room full of henchmen.  Wheird!  And yes I am aware of the "h" in "wheird"!  Watch the movie Hot Rod.

Another major problem the henchmen cannot seem to get is logistics of a group fight.  It is not uncommon for the hero to find themselves surrounded by henchmen who then proceed to attack ONE AT A TIME.  I mean come on!  Of course you will lose since this now becomes a series of one-on-one fights in sort of Mortal Kombat styled series of battles.  If they had any sense, they would swam the hero all at once.  True, a few henchmen might get injured but it would be minimal and the hero would be taken no problem.  If I ever get jumped by a gang of people, I hope they follow this common action movie issue (and of course they don't know martial arts or carry weapons).

Not all of the problems in action movies are the fault of the henchmen.  Sometimes the issue is the people making the movie.  I love movies with montages.  The point of a montage is to show progress of the main character through progressive clips that give the illusion of time passing while at the same time, remind the audience about what is going on.  Listen to "You Need a Montage!!" from the movie Team America:World Police if you require more help with montages.  The audience is basically left with one conclusion...that the main character is somehow allowed to learn and improve in a Matrix like fashion and speed by being a part of a montage.  If that was all it took in real life I'd learn every though montages.  I would be a super genious and have awesome soundtracks playing in the background while I do.

Anyway, these are just of the few great things about action movies.  If you think of one, we would love to hear about it.  Post a comment below with your thoughts below and thanks for reading.

Trilogies? or Two-logies?

So, here is my first real post! I hope you will enjoy it and follow along as long as this blog is alive, so with no further delay, lets get started.

Has anyone noticed that often trilogies are not in fact trilogies but two movies cleverly disguised as three? I have noticed a trend in Hollywood that I would call a "testing the water" philosophy. With a good many movies, Hollywood will release the first movie to test the water and see if people actually like the film. I submit Star Wars as the peoples exhibit "A" as my first example. George Lucas released Star Wars: A New Hope (Episode 4 of a series of 6) on May 25th, 1977. While the original concept underwent many revisions, A New Hope, was always the first movie of what would be a three part trilogy. However, as time progressed, Lucas realized that the tale of Star Wars could not be contained in three movies but as many as nine (divided into three trilogies). Near the end of the revisions of A New Hope, Lucas made subtle changes to make the movie a self-contained film in case audiences did not like it.

On May 21st, 1980 Lucas released Star Wars: The Empire Strikes Back (Episode 5) which ends in a cliffhanger with Han Solo trapped in frozen Carbonite and leaving audiences with the sentence, "Luke...I am your father." Fans around the world would have to wait until May 25th, 1983 to find out what happens to the hero's they grew to love but this in itself is my point. The first movie of this "trilogy" is a self contained film and the second and third movies are actually one longer movie cut in half making the series a "two-logy".

I offer you the peoples exhibit "B", the Matrix trilogy. The Matrix was released on March 31st, 1999 by the Wachowski brothers and was a critical success. In fact, it was the success of the first film that lead to the drafting and eventual production of the second and third films in the series. The Matrix: Reloaded and The Matrix: Revolutions were shot at the same time but released May 15th and November 5th, 2003 respectively. You could very well watch The Matrix and be perfectly happy that humanity will rebel and stop the evil machines, or you can then watch The Matrix: Reloaded and be forced to then watch Revolutions in order to discover what happens to the characters and the history of humanity and the machines. You are left to wonder how did Neo stop the machines with only his thoughts, what is Agent Smiths plans (now inside the mind of the character Bane) and will Morpheus get a new ship since the Nabuchadnezzar was destroyed.

The Back to the Future trilogy shall be entered as peoples exhibit "C". The first movie ends with Marty returning to the future and Doc Brown using the note he left to prevent his eventual murder. Left alone, this would be a great stand alone movie. Back to the Future 2 and 3 however cannot be watch alone but must come as a set. In fact, they were filmed together and clips from the third film can be seen at the end of the second movie. Part II ends with Doc Brown missing in the old west and Marty approaching the younger Doc Brown for help. Part III details Marty's journey to the old west despite the older Brown's express instructions not to come and their eventual return to the future. A trilogy (or at least a three part film) that is really two main movies.

The Pirate of the Caribbean can be weakly thought of in the same vain. Peoples exhibit "D" shows the first film, The Curse of the Black Pearl, as ending with Captain Jack sailing off in search of some treasure with the East India Trading Company in close pursuit. This could be considered a cliffhanger, but in typical Disney fashion this is also a happy way to end a movie. However, the sequels are in fact continuations of the same movie. Dead Man's Chest and At World's End detail the entire journey from the discovery of the heart of Davey Jones and the apparent death of Captain Jack to the rescue of Jake from Davey Jones locker and the downfall of the greedy East India Trading Company. Two, maybe three films, but you get the idea.

I leave you with a few trilogies that do break this rule but with some rationale. The Lord of the Rings is in fact one long-as movie broken into three parts (roughly equal to the same volumes of J.R.R. Tolkien's novel). This breaks the trend as it was never intended to "test the waters". Hollywood knew there would be an audience and so released in pieces so that each was a "viewable" 3 hours. Quentin Tarantino's Kill Bill is also an example of a movie that is far too long if seen together so was released in three "volumes". My final example of a rule breaker is movies that are basically just multiple stories of the same character. Superman and Spider-man are such examples. These movies based on comic books can tap large databases of story ideas that they know fans will go see and so do not have to "test the waters" either.

Conclusion

Does one really need to make three movies to have a trilogy? or can you simple cut a longer idea into two pictures (both of whom can then no longer be truly enjoyed on their own) can call that a trilogy. I do not presume to be able to make that decision but I submit to you the evidence and will let you decide for yourselves.