On Villains...

     Creating a villain is easy. But creating one you can sympathize with is accidental. This is what I’ve come to find in the last few days. 

     My current project started out as a few different ideas that I meshed together, so I found that having a few villains at once would work out in the end. This way I could leave room for more novels once I was done with the central story of this book, and have a much larger overarching story using one villain. But this villain is the one I have found qualities of myself in. I’m not sure if my subconscious molded him, or if it was all just a fluke, but I find the character to be much more effective this way.

     The villain started out as the stock one, a bloodthirsty killer bent on dominating an empire. But I took it to the next level of stock characters and made him sophisticated. He wasn’t bloodthirsty, but was still the one wishing for domination. Eventually, he became a person wishing to save a group of people, and in order to do that, he has to do horrible things. This is where things took a turn. 

     The more I've planned the character's arch, the more I find how much I actually like him. Is he a villain then? Yes, he is. Let’s just say he is still a foil towards one of the heroes of the book. But in the planning, I have found a few strange parallels with history. One of which got me really thinking about some things:

     One of my favorite personalities from the past is Atilla the Hun. The thing about Atilla, though, is the fact that he was seen as a “ruthless” leader. But the fact of the matter is that those who wrote about him were emissaries from the Roman Empire. How is that an impartial view? It’s like that saying, “those who win are the ones who write history.” How are we to tell if Atilla was a bad man? Some might say that the Romans didn’t really “win” against Atilla, since he died outside of the battlefield (there are many theories about how he died, including being murdered by one of his wives). But think of it this way. The Romans hated the barbarians who raided them, such as Atilla. He dies, and the Huns break apart due to the infighting caused by Atilla’s sons. The Romans continued on after this, albeit not for very long. They wrote down everything about Atilla, not the descendants of the Huns. So how can their account be true? Atilla had to of had at least a few good qualities if he was able to bring the Huns into a cohesive group. Maybe he was a good leader after all.

     This just makes me think of my would-be villain. Could he be a good man? Will he “win”? And if he does, will he be seen as a hero? Because if he loses, you can be sure he will be branded as a monster.

     And this makes me think of myself. For whatever reason, I am always branded the bad guy. I do things in a way that I feel is honorable and good, but for whatever reason, modern society (and friends) don’t feel this way. So I sympathize with my villain, and with Atilla the Hun as well. Even with the good we do, we are branded the villains. And for one of them (the fictional one), it is by my hand.

When did CGI go bad?

     I for one am not a fan of using CGI in movies or television. There are hardly any movies that I watch and say, “Oh wait, THAT was CGI?”. I can always tell, especially when it’s a pasted-in background. I wasn’t always so down on CGI. I was like many people when it first started coming out. The best word to describe it was “awestruck”. But when did it go bad? At least for me? Well, let me start with when it was at it’s best.

Awesomeness

     The Jurassic Park films will always be the best movies using CGI. Ever since I was a little kid and saw those dinosaurs stomping around, I was hooked. But the thing was, those dinosaurs looked as real as they could get. I would say that it was the CGI work in general, but it was actually the CGI being used as just a part in the machine of special effects. Puppets were still being used in this movie, which melded well with the digital aspects of the film. This use of puppeteering with the CGI created a realistic portrayal that I really don’t think is seen anywhere else in Hollywood. And to think, Steven Speilberg originally wanted to use stop-motion. It was a good call by Speilberg to switch over to CGI, but this would lead to many ramifications in Hollywood.

Jar Jar Binks where he should be: In chains...

     So let’s bring it a bit forward now. Star Wars Episode I came out, and almost everything in it was CGI. It looked fake to me, even back then. But the technology was still so new that it didn’t bother me. Plus I was only a kid. Looking back on it now, having characters that were fully CGI was a mistake. They looked weird, and weren’t easy to connect with. Jar Jar Binks was already frustrating, but being an “imaginary” character probably didn’t help many people. Two more prequels were to be made, and each was filled with more CGI trash. My disenchantment was starting to come a little closer.

Humans! Now with 100% more CGI!

     Cue I Am Legend. I was really excited for this movie when it was announced. I had just read the original novella by Richard Matheson and was psyched to see it on the big screen. But before the movie came out, I read about how the “vampires” being played by actual actors were replaced by CGI characters. It was a breaking point for me. Why change something that was so close to being human into a digital being? I tried not to be stuck in my beliefs, but after seeing the movie, my nightmares were true. The vampires looked so horrible that my anger was beyond words. Everyone I saw the movie with loved it, so I kept my true feelings hidden for a while. It was just dumbfounding. I think using real actors would have been much more effective in putting forth the idea that Will Smith was the real monster in the film (but really, you can’t have that now, can you?). How awesome would it have been to never actually show the vampires until he had one sitting on a table in front of him? Make it so he keeps making them out to be so inhuman in the beginning that when you get your first glimpse of one actually being human it was a shock to the system. That would have helped the movie for me. But of course, Hollywood ruined it.

"You're too late, Dr. Jones. We have already replaced your world with something called 'digital imagery'."

     The last straw was Indiana Jones and the Temple of the Crystal Skull (nice name). The original Indiana Jones films are my favorite movies, so I was excited to see the newest one. I was worried about George Lucas being at the helm after his craptastic  Attack of the Clones and Revenge of the Sith. I read an article a few months before the film came out detailing how George Lucas said only a small portion of the movie was CGI. This cooled my jets quite a bit, and I became even more excited for the film to come out. Well George Lucas is a liar. EVERYTHING was CGI. Even the desert in the background at the beginning of the film was CGI. The whole film may as well have just been green screen to me. I had had it. CGI was the worst thing to ever happen to movies (well there is also 3D, but I’ll get to that another time). 

Where did this go? :'(

     So now it seems like everything has to be CGI. Movies have lost the luster they once had. Whatever happened to practical effects? Epic stories were able to be made in the past before CGI, why not anymore? Trash like Transformers, Clash of the Titans (not the original, that one was awesome), and Avatar dance across screens around the world. People have forgotten the classics that looked good and told a good story. CGI should be used as a tool along with other special effects to create something as close to "reality" as possible. Real-life is what should be used in films that have real actors. A film may be fake, but I shouldn’t feel like everything in it is as well.

How Would Colonization of Other Planets Affect Humanity?

     Technology is slowly creeping its way to new pastures.  Advancements are not as common as they once were, or at least, not as public.  Someday, we may have the capability to move between worlds.  Slowly at first, but maybe in the future there will be instantaneous travel between planets using some form of technology.  Most people think about the technology portion of this equation.  But what of humanity itself?  What will happen to us?  By colonizing other worlds and splitting up the population, what will happen?  What changes will we see?

     I would first like to discuss how these colonies would be split up.  How will people be chosen for worlds?  Will it be a mix of different peoples?  Will there be select groups chosen for certain aspects?  Most people would say that specially chosen groups would be the best.  Groups that have a mix of different qualities.  Be it race, gender, profession, IQ, or anything else.  This seems the best course as it would allow for the colony to be diverse like Earth from the start.  But would having these different people together really create a perfect colony?  Probably not.  I’m not saying I would choose having a single type of person on each world, but it could be feasible.  The reason the world is such a nasty place is because there is no tolerance anywhere really.  Sure, places have “tolerance”, but not enough to get rid of hatred and war.  Differences in people are what start these altercations.  So sending certain groups to other worlds would make sense.  Each world could be populated with it’s own race, religion, or political belief.  Could this really work at all?  Maybe at first.  People might start off in agreement, but there will always be factions within factions.  And who is to say there will not be altercations still?  There would almost have to be some communication between worlds.  There will still be disagreements between these different groups.  Nothing will stop them from fighting across the vast distances between them.  So would it be better to start with a mix of people, or separate between them?  

     My next point is the changes in humanity itself.  By separating the human population, will each planet gain a distinct look?  Or even a distinct species?  This might not be the case if travel between planets was instant, or even in a few months or years.  People could then move around the planets at will, and maybe relocate to another planet and broaden the gene pool.  The human race is always changing now, but that is on one world.  We never notice because of this.  But humans on distinct worlds could change in dramatically different ways.  What will happen?  Will some worlds have giants?  Will others have amphibious humans?  Who knows? Changes in biology would of course take a lot longer than cultural ones.  But by being able to travel to other planets quickly, trade would be possible. It is safe to say that each planet will have it’s own distinct “culture”, be it in architecture, clothing, and food.  Trade could keep each planet in check, at least in staying “human”.  But if travel took decades, at least in the sense of relativistic speeds, would the human race on each planet change?  If travel took forever, each planet would have to be self-sustaining.  Trading would not be in as large a scale as it would be if travel was easier.  Would the diet of each world be different then?  How different will architecture and clothing be?  Mostly it would depend on the environment of the planet.  Certain aspects of the environment could force the colonists to adapt in varying ways that could change them drastically.  Without contact from other worlds, will they stay “human”?  Or will others change around them on other planets?  But of course, what is human, and what isn’t?  That definition could change on each planet.

     What about Earth?  Who would stay?  Who would go?  Would people who left feel banished in some way?  Would the people left on Earth feel abandoned?   Would life go on?  Someday, no matter what, the human race will have to leave Earth.  The sun will expand and overtake Earth with it’s fiery mass.  Then our solar system would be unable to sustain life.  The human race’s home would be destroyed.  Would it be forgotten?  Probably.  Over time each world would come up with it’s own history of how it was the homeworld of humans.  Maybe humans would be smart enough to keep our true history intact.  But we have a certain forgetfulness when it comes to our history, so I doubt it.  Earth would probably start out as the “core” world.  It would send out supplies  to the other colonies.  If travel was instant, it wouldn’t be a problem.  But if travel was slow, shipments would have to be sent right after the colony ship was sent in order to accommodate the colonists.  Over time each world would become independent.  Or maybe not.  Earth could stay the authority figure for a very long time.  Or war could break out and another planet would become the “core” world.  Who could ever know?  Some despot could have delusions of a galaxy-wide empire and try to take over.  Or, some planets could go isolationist and stay behind closed doors.  Both could even happen.

     Could a galaxy-wide government even exist?  Maybe.  As long as travel times were halfway decent, it could be possible.  There would be a “core” world, but there would also have to be garrison worlds throughout the galaxy to make sure the government stayed intact.  These garrison worlds would be sort of like a state capital, or maybe a “sector” capital if you are feeling spacey.  It would definitely be hard to keep together, but with certain systems put to work, it could be possible.  Now, if travel took even just a few years between planets, a galaxy-wide government could not stay together.  Problems on each planet could be handled by their respective government, but planet-to-planet disputes would take years to handle, and who knows what will occur during the voyage to another planet.  If communication was instant, it would still be hard to keep the government together.  Sure, a telephone call from the “core” world will have you stop in your steps for a moment, but an armada coming in when you are still alive causing mischief is another deal.  The trouble is, if someone is sent to stop another person or planet from doing something, they probably already did it while they were in transit.  And who is to say they will even be alive when you get there?  Galaxy-wide government would be difficult without instant travel between worlds.

     Sure, this little “essay” is pretty irrelevant.  There isn’t a colony ship going out anytime soon.  But hopefully this has got some people thinking of something other than what’s on television.  Maybe it will make people think towards the future. Someday, this could very well be our descendants problem. What would our culture be? Would a galaxy-wide government work? Would the definition of being human change? I for one would be excited to catch just a glimpse of a future with colony worlds just to answer these questions. 

Me = Fictional Character Conglomerate?

     Is it a bad thing to be constantly compared to a vast array of fictional characters? Because that’s always the case for me, actually. I sometimes think that maybe it’s a “character flaw” of mine. But really, with all the created characters out there, how can it not be possible to find at least one fictional character for each real person? I for one have always revered a few fictional characters since I was a child. Indiana Jones, Han Solo, Ian Malcolm... These are just a few. They’ve obviously rubbed off on me a bit. I’m an Anthropology major (with an interest in Archaeology and a penchant for shouting “It belongs in a museum!”) that is a sarcastic and know-it-all rebel. But other than people who have known me for a very, very long time, I’m not usually associated with these characters by others. So I decided to sit and list the characters I am compared to the most to see if I can work out why.

Dr. Gregory House from House:

     I get this one a lot from other people in recent years. I’m a big fan of House, and do share many of his beliefs. I wouldn’t say I’m as angry and miserable as he is, but sometimes I am. I also tend to call most everyone an idiot or moron because I think I’m smarter than everyone else (which I openly admit is a flaw, so I’m obviously not as arrogant as House). People say that I see things other people don’t catch on to, sort of like House. I also have moments of extreme clarity where I think of an idea out of nowhere. I also don’t have a very active social life, so yeah, I can kind of see the similarities.

Patrick Jane from The Mentalist:

     I’ve been compared to Jane before when I’ve told some people about others saying I’m like House. They say that House and Jane are almost exactly alike, except Jane is able to hide his sarcasm and arrogance a bit better (Thanks people). So basically others compare me to Jane to make me feel better. 

Sherlock Holmes from Sherlock Holmes and Sherlock Holmes: Game of Shadows:

     I actually find this one the most amusing when I hear it, mostly because I saw myself in the character, as well. The Holmes seen in the newer movies is much more eccentric than the “classic” versions. Once again, the character is a loner who is way too observant for his own good. The best example of my similarity with the character is often cited as being the scene in the first film where Holmes is sitting in the restaurant by himself watching everybody around him. I often do the same thing when I’m in a public place, and people have said I really am like that when I’m with them and not talking about anything at a particular moment.

Scott Pilgrim from the Scott Pilgrim graphic novel series:

     Basically people say I’m more like the Scott Pilgrim of the comics and not the movie. I can see why that’s true because I find the comic version less pathetic. Scott is basically a nerd who thinks he is more awesome than he actually is, which I guess is how I normally act. But I AM totally awesome! Anyway, the shaggy hair and stupid little things he does can usually be something you can count on me doing. Most examples are ones where he either spaces out or does something really, really embarrassing. He also loves music and video games. Personally, I can see the similarity to me, but mostly because of the people he hangs out with, who remind me of my friends. So I guess my whole group is represented in the series.

Ted Mosby from How I Met Your Mother:

     I totally understand this one and constantly see it myself. I would say that I’m a hopeless romantic, which Ted obviously is. But he’s also a big nerd like me. There are constant Star Wars references coming out of his mouth. Ted is also a big fan of correcting people (which I do on a daily basis). But seriously, the thing I have most in common with him is never being able to find “the one”, as he would say. I always feel his pain whenever he totally fails at finding this “mystery woman”. But at least I know that he has a happy ending, which gives me some hope for myself. On another note, what guy wouldn’t want a girlfriend that plays bass in a band?! No? I guess that’s just me and Ted Mosby then...

     So those were the characters I’m usually associated with. There have been others, but these are basically the top five. So are there any relations between the five of them? I know I can see a few. But I don’t think I am any one in particular. I have traits from every single one of them. So I do see that I am a unique individual! Awesome. And maybe it’s not so bad being compared to fictional characters. Especially when they are some of my favorite ones.

 But Indiana Jones and Han Solo are still my favorite :P

Why Being a Writer and a Perfectionist Sucks...

When it comes to many things, I am a perfectionist. I don’t like things to be half-assed. I guess that’s one reason why I hate group projects. I either feel like I’m the one doing all the work, or I feel like I’m not doing enough to make the project perfect. Either way I’m never happy. One of my professors said something the other day that seemed sort of profound:

“Perfection only lasts for a few minutes, and then disappears.”

I’m sort of taken aback by this. I think that it is true, but at the same time I don’t. It’s like hair. You spend your time trying to make it how you want it, but then step outside and a slight breeze screws it up. But then I see a classic movie like “Jaws” and think how it’s still perfect after a few decades. I like to think of perfection as something that works. “Jaws” works, and it works very well. There may be some flaws, but it is still perfect in a way. I think flaws help in making something perfect, which is a bit of an oxymoron. A flaw makes something real, and something realistic is perfect to me. But then again, flaws tend to stand out. And that drives me insane.

If they can do it, I can do it! Wait, you thought I was talking about flying a jet!? No, I mean perfection!

This leads me to my real problem. Being a writer and a perfectionist is hard. Really hard. It’s one of the reasons I haven’t had anything published yet. I like everything to be perfect and make complete sense. But the further you get into a narrative, the further you get from information that has already taken place. Here’s a concurrent example:

Just a little while ago, I was reading an older chapter that detailed how a planet was pitch-black at night because there was no moon. It had me second-guess myself on one of my newer chapters, which took place the next night. Lighting was a big part of the chapter and I thought to myself, “Did I forget this earlier line about there not being a moon?” It was just a single line, but was relevant to the rest of the story in that I couldn’t contradict it. I didn’t even have it written down in any of my notes. So I proceeded to go through chapters looking for any reference to a moon that shouldn’t exist. This took a little while, and I soon found that I never referenced the non-existent moon anyway. It’s things like this that set me back. I’ve started writing more notes than before, which are mostly just small details that might not mean anything. But it’s the details that count and you can be sure some reader will find one small little contradiction and call you out on it.

Another horrible part of being a perfectionist while writing is in needing everything to work. This is probably the worst part for me. I’m constantly thinking about my current project. If I’m sitting there all quiet, I’m probably thinking about my work. Every spare second is me trying to work everything out; from a government system to the basic plot-line. The worst part is that that government system might be something small and in the background of the story. But I want it to make sense. Especially if in the future I want to go in depth with that current detail. I mine as well fill out that detail in my head now so I don’t have to do it later. But I also want the main plot to make sense. I will sit and think about this a lot. “Why is this character doing this?” “Would a group of people react this way?” “Would this actually be possible?” These are questions I try and figure out on a daily basis. I also try and get into the minds of certain characters, and research what people like them will do. All of these processes make the story take longer to come about, but I hope it will be worth it in the end.

My first project was a disaster because of my perfectionism. I started the book in 7th grade and worked on it for a few years into high school. The plot was so complex that when I tried to explain it to people, they were confused. I kept going back and changing things constantly. Reading and rereading everything dozens of times. I think I did this after every chapter, just trying to see if things made sense. People still didn’t understand. After about four years of working on it, I had only gotten to about 80 pages. And it seemed like 200 pages had gone by in the plot. Everything was just so fast paced. My writing was all over the place. My mind exploded every time I tried to work on it. In 11th grade I abandoned all efforts to even try working on it again.

Trying to get to "Perfection" often leads you to "Writer's Block", or worse, "Dead End"

In my freshman year of college, I went back to it. After reading over everything, I hated it. Some characters were all right. I could keep them for other projects, but I completely hated everything else. For one thing, it was far from perfect. But my writing style had also changed. To even think of salvaging the whole thing would mean a total rewrite, and I just couldn’t bring myself to typing another word on that file. So I sat back for another two years until I had a flash of inspiration. After another year or so of planning, I finally began work on my current project. I’ve written twice as much as my abandoned project, and have barely scratched the surface of the plot. I’ve also only been working for a fraction of the time. I guess my perfectionism has been managed just a tad better. 

Or it’s even more rampant and has lead to creating a plot that actually makes sense this time around.

Have Video Games Gotten Easier?

A month or so ago I purchased the Jak and Daxter Collection for PS3. Anyone who knows me knows that those games have always been my favorite. The characters, settings, and stories are just amazing. I don’t want to say anything spoilerish so I’ll leave it at that. But it had been a while since I played them, and found myself having a difficult time every so often. After a while I got used to them, but it really got me thinking.

The Dynamic Duo: Jak and Daxter

I’m one of those people that will dive into a game by playing on the hardest difficulty as soon as I get it (though sometimes higher difficulties have to be unlocked). When I play, I want it to be a challenge and not something I can mindlessly get through. I think that’s why I really don’t like the Call of Duty series so much anymore. I don’t care about the multiplayer, but the story in the game. Sadly, story hasn’t been so great in those games since Call of Duty 3. Anyway, I want to feel like I’m having to fight through whatever the character had to fight through to progress in a story. I guess I’m just weird in that way.

Games like the Jak and Daxter series were like that back in the day. But now, games seem to hold your hand all the way through. Lately, I’ve been playing Mass Effect 3, and I’ve barely died on the Hard difficulty. The redeeming quality is that it is a “story” game, much like the Knights of the Old Republic games were, so the action isn’t what I’m playing for. But then I look back on my time playing the re-released Jak games. They were HARD. Maybe not the first one, but the second one was so difficult. Sometimes frustratingly so.

I found myself at times just cussing at the television. But the thing was, I wasn’t able to complete a mission because I “wasn’t good enough” and not because of anything else. Health bars were still around instead of regenerating health. Checkpoints were sparse, and sometimes didn’t even exist in a whole mission. If you died, it was because you sucked, end of story. By learning how to do things and getting tricky, you were finally able to get past a mission. I find this oddly lacking in games now.

We live in a time when everything in a game is given to you. The developers WANT you to finish a game. I can’t even tell you how many Sega Genesis or PS1 games I never finished. They were that hard. I go back every so often when I can after telling myself, “I’m older now, and more awesome. I can get through the game now!” But I still can’t. They were just harder, and I sucked.

I got the Super Mario Collection for Wii a year or so ago and tried playing that. What a miserable failure that turned out to be. The game didn’t suck. It was me. For my entire life, I have never gotten very far in a Mario game. I try to like Mario like everyone else, but I secretly despise him and his awesome mustache. I SUCK at Mario games. But that’s not true, either. I played games like Super Mario 64 and Super Mario Galaxy and was just fine playing those. But the old ones were unforgiving.

How my Mario gameplay looks

I’m going to switch gears now on this piece of written material. Games are easier now because people just don’t have the gumption to work hard anymore. People want things to be given to them, even in games. It’s the society we live in. Same thing with multiplayer. No one can do anything individually anymore. Call me a loner (which I am), but when I play a video game, it’s to get away for a little while. I don’t like to sit and play video games with people or watch them play. If I play a game while someone is at my house, it’s usually a sign that I want them to leave (an exception is Rock Band). Similarly, I’m an independent person that wants to do things on my own. I don’t like being helped, I prefer to do everything by myself. So when I play a game that constantly wants to help me by telling me what to do and magically regenerating my health, I get frustrated. But I’m frustrated with everything in the world, so why not video games as well?

So I’ll keep playing games that hold my hand. But that doesn’t mean I have to like it.

A Conundrum from a Galaxy Far, Far Away

It's May 4th, and that means it's Star Wars Day! In celebration of this yearly sci-fi occurrence, I will be examining a key issue: Tauntaun or Rancor?

     If you aren't a Star Wars fan, let me explain...

     A Tauntaun is a reptomammal living on the ice planet of Hoth. They are large bipedal organisms that are found throughout the planet and have a few different sub-species. They mostly live off of lichen under the snowy surface that makes up the entire planet. Tauntauns can be used as mounts to get around a planet's surface quickly. A few are shown in the film "The Empire Strikes Back".

http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Tauntaun

     A Rancor is also a reptomammal that is found on the planet Dathomir. They are a large carnivorous species that can be fairly aggressive in their wild state. They are semi-sentient, though, and have a very close relationship with the Dathomiri witches. They can also be used as a mount, or trained with armor and weapons. Rancors can be found across the galaxy because of exotic animal trading. This has also led to a few sub-species evolving to fit into new climates. A feral one can be seen in "Return of the Jedi".

http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Rancor

     So again. Which do you choose? Let's say you're sitting by a campfire and a pod crash lands in a field near you. You run over, and inside you find a baby Tauntaun and a baby Rancor. You can only save one. Which do you choose?

     It's hard isn't it? At least for those Star Wars fans out there. I posed this question to a friend while we were camping a few weeks ago. He sat there and didn't say anything for a while. Then he admitted that he didn't know what he would pick. He asked me if I could choose, and I found that it was hard as well. So we sat and compared the two, then contrasted them. Both had their pluses and minuses, so it didn't make the decision any easier. I finally picked the Tauntaun, just because it was smaller and probably didn't have such a voracious appetite. But my friend was still having trouble. It took many different consolations to enable him to decide:

- The animal wouldn't get captured by the military or government

- You would be able to feed the animal easily

- You would have room to keep it

- Scientists would take DNA samples to clone it and study it without harming the animal

- The escape pod would have a saddle for when it reached maturity

     He still found it hard to decide. Finally, I said neither of the animals would die. Whichever one he chose was his, and that I got the other one. At this, he chose the Tauntaun. It took the better part of an hour for him to decide.

     After we left the fire, I sat there and started thinking about what had just happened. We loved Star Wars so much that when the question was posed, we actually had trouble deciding what to pick. At first I sat there feeling ashamed at myself. How could I care that much? It's just a stupid film franchise. But then I thought of how I had grown up watching the films, reading the books and comics, playing with the toys, and playing the video games. It was a childhood memory. Star Wars had given me something to love and cherish for the rest of my life. How could I be ashamed about something I had loved since childhood? The thought quickly passed over me, and I just laughed at the conundrum my friend and I had just faced.

     So, Tauntaun or Rancor? Either way, Star Wars still has an impact on people. No matter what they say.

HAPPY STAR WARS DAY!