The good, the bad, and the shitty slogan

Catchy, witty slogans have always been an apparently crucial part of any budding sabbatical officer’s election campaign. However, concerted efforts to scale new heights of wit from some of Exeter’s finest would-be politicos have often fallen disastrously short. In the name of rigorous investigative journalism, I trawled the archives for the most misplaced slogans in recent years, in an attempt to provide this year’s candidates with some entirely serious advice about how not to make me cringe.

As they near the end of their terms in office, last year’s Sabbs can rest easy in the knowledge that, on the whole, the slogans they thrust upon an unwitting student population were not that bad. VP Participation and Campuses Jak Curtis-Rendall kept things simple, urging students to vote “Jak 4 Pac”, while Chris Rootkin implored us all to “Root for Rootkin”, while dressed up as a potato, a foodstuff infamous for not actually being a root vegetable.

Despite these minor potato-based inaccuracies, 2013’s cohort faded in comparison to the montage-worthy brilliance of the cringeworthiness offered by the election hopefuls from the 2012/13 academic year. Ben Jones, who eventually lost the Guild President race to Nicholas ‘Welshy’ Davies (who dressed as a sheep all week to win, obvs), harrowingly implored voters to “Give the Guild a BJ”. Quite how this slogan would have played out during the post-SSB fallout remains thankfully unknown. Meanwhile, Jenny Mayhew invoked the might of the “J Team” in her election campaign, with the less said about this method of campaigning the better.

However, the best (and by best I obviously mean worst) of that year’s horrible, horrible slogans came in the race for VP Welfare. Ian “Flash” Gordon enticed voters with “Fancy a flash?”, but voting statistics from that year indicate that while many voters were irrevocably scarred by Ian’s insinuation, few actually listed him as their preferred candidate.

While the flaws in Gordon’s mildly unsettling strategy were laid bare (sorry) for all to see, the other Welfare candidates were obviously unwilling to give creepy Ian centre stage in the inevitable denouement of this paragraph. Sam Hollis-Pack ran with HP Sauce, evoking the well-known Welfare device of brown savoury syrup, while Samuel Longden went all Michael Bay montage scene with “Together we can, we will”. Unfortunately for Samuel, we couldn’t, and we didn’t.

Eventual election winner Imogen Sanders won with “Imagine Imogen”, as well as, one would imagine, some insightful and intelligent policies. Not that your policies would matter when you’re running against a flasher, a sauce obsessive, and a wannabe Jed Bartlet tragically mired in the backwaters of the West Country.

These diabolical attempts were topped only by Josh Cleall, who contrived to not become 2012 Guild President with the slogan “Cleall or No Cleall”. Despite invoking the laboured stereotype that students just watch daytime TV, as well as unnecessarily reminding everyone of Noel Edmonds (who has always personally made me think of a really sad lion), Cleall was unable to open the red box marked “President”. Devastation.

Good slogans are simple, right?

Another personal favourite came in the 2011 race for Guild President, where seemingly atemporal leaflet-freak Damien Jeffries (he also ran in 2012) ran on a policy of “Compensation, Crackdown, and No Nonsense”. To contextualise this, Jeffries’ manifesto included a ban on suggesting that he looked like England footballer James Milner, and plans for a ski-lift up Stocker Road. Weird.

To end this article on the bleak note it’s all been building to, I’d like to quote the manifesto of Giovanni Sforza, an unsuccessful candidate for VP Participation and Campuses in 2011. Sforza told students to “make the best of it”, and this, readers, is my advice to you, too. If you’re running, then please, please, PLEASE think about how cynical, jaded, and potentially hungover students like me are going to receive your slogan. If you’re not running, then move beyond this article’s questionable sass (after sharing it with all your friends, obviously), and engage with the manifestos offered by your candidates. They will shape your university experience in any number of ways, and they deserve your attention, despite the terrible slogans. Make the best of a chaotic week, and make your mark on student democracy.

Owen Keating, News Editor

Do you have a favourite so-bad-it’s-good election slogan? Do the awful puns actually brighten your day? Or are they just a nuisance and a distraction from the real issues at stake? Leave a comment below or write to the Comment team at the Exeposé Comment Facebook Group or on Twitter @CommentExepose.

Debate – Did it live up to the book?

Its a debate! Iona Bepey and Ifeoluwatolani Omotola conclude our look at the success of film adaptations as they outline their opposing views…

Iona Bepey sympathises with filmmakers who have to deal with crazy fan reactions.

With film adaptations, the phrase ‘didn’t live up to the book’ has become fairly commonplace. We’re lucky enough to live in an era where barely a piece of print meets publication without talks of a movie being spawned from the pages, but can a ‘Page-to-Screener’ really ever do the original work justice? Is it pure sloppiness on the part of cast and crew that sees so many filmgoers leaving the cinema feeling let down? Or are we of a generation who simply underestimates the gravity of responsibility and pressure when it comes to the difficult task of producing not only a film in and of itself, but of material with a pre-existing, fiercely-loyal fanbase..?

I’m of the opinion we ought to pity filmmakers; that is, any filmmaker charged with adapting a popular novel into an international Hollywood blockbuster. Try to imagine the expanse of the task: 391 pages in Catching Fire, and two, maybe two-and-a-half hours to shoehorn them all into a format satisfying enough to appease the legions of The Hunger Games fans the globe-over, simultaneous to scoring the Big Time with critics, and even selling the story to those who haven’t encountered the original media before. As Suzanne Collins herself might say, the odds are most decidedly not in your favour.

A point of reckoning most of the novel-to-film genre’s harshest critics tend to forget is that if what you’re after is a page-by-page reading of the original book, these are not the droids you’re looking for. Lionsgate Films, I imagine, would have had a hard time meeting their $700 million box office landslide with Jennifer Lawrence reading an audiobook of the original The Hunger Games novel. The solution: learning to take what’s given to us at face value.

As a big fan of visual as well as purely transcribed storytelling, I’ve never balked at the idea of a favourite novel setting course for the silver screen, aware though I am that the book is usually better. However, I’ve made my peace with the fact that not every detail of the novel will make it into the script; annoying, certainly, but it shouldn’t detract from your enjoyment of the film for what it is – an adaptation.

Perhaps it’s as simple as changing the order you approach material; if we saw the film before experiencing the book, would we be as disappointed post-cinema?

My advice is see the film first; join the thrumming crowds of moviegoers and reviewers, ranting about ‘Terrific, sophisticated comedy’, ‘Film of the year’ and ‘Rated ‘Thor’ out of Five’ (with thanks to Empire Online) before you attempt to read the original. When you inevitably discover the book was better… well. At least you can walk away with the knowledge that at one point at least, you enjoyed the film too.

So let’s try for some sympathy, in particular for the poor sod charged with turning Fifty Shades into something almost watchable. Perhaps we’ll hit a benchmark wherein the film adaptation is actually the better of the two… Forgive me, though, for not holding out too much hope!

Iona Bepey

Whereas Ifeoluwatolani Omotola argues that films and books just shouldn’t be compared.

When a studio or author announces that a beloved novel is being translated for screen there is a rush of criticism, some good, some bad and some hysterical. Often readers don’t want their beloved characters altered in the page to screen translation. Alterations to a character or plot often occur as a result of cost or time, helping to cater to a wider audience since not everything in a book can work in film. The best part of a book is the imagination factor since, barring extremely vivid descriptions, with a book the world is your oyster and each person has their own subjective imagination. How I might imagine the hunky hero is very different from the physical characteristics my best friend may picture. In my opinion this is one of the key reasons for negative fan reactions. Most recently there was a small wave of controversy following the casting of the leads in the upcoming Fifty Shades of Grey film. When we attempt to solidify the vague literary imaginings that occur of the page (by defining what characters, places or even accents actually are like with films) it’s bound to contradict with someone’s own subjective idea. After all, one can’t please everyone.

Some films adaptations even have no similarity whatsoever to the books they claim to emulate. For me this was especially obvious with World War Z. Beyond the name and the concept of zombies the film was completely different from the book – although I did enjoy it. But once in a while I come across a film adaptation I find so terrible I don’t know whether to laugh or cry at what has been done to what might have been a great book. This was the case with my favourite book, The Host by Stephenie Meyer. I have read and reread that book dozens of times and, although it’s not by any means perfect, I love it. So when I found out it was going to be made into a movie I was initially sceptical. Anyone who has read the book before will know that there is a lot of internal thought and character reflections, so I couldn’t help but worry how this would work on the big screen. I was thrilled with the trailer, which was amazing. But I can honestly say that The Host was one of the worst films I have ever seen; the plot and concept just did not fit the medium of film.

So as The Hunger Games: Catching Fire is released to the general viewing public, I will be there front and centre, fingers crossed (much like I was with the first one). I sometimes feel that the books vs film argument is an unfair comparison. Books can be hundreds or thousands of pages long. With films something is usually lost in translation and that is why when someone asks me which I prefer I will always stick to the original.

Ifeoluwatolani Omotola

Leave a comment below or write to Books at the Facebook Group or on Twitter.

The Thicke of It: Only Option is No Change

Calum Humphreys argues that the whole student reaction has spiralled out of control and he is left with no choice but to vote for no change.

The current vote regarding the student body’s reaction to Robin Thicke’s magnus odious is a storm in a teacup, which has damaged the process of tackling sexism on campus. Now that we find ourselves in this horrendous mess, the only option is to vote no change. I appreciate this may seem a controversial stance to take, but a vote for no change is valid for two reasons.

“Does the Exeter student body really have the appetite to do this? We already seem weary after one and a half votes, what will we be like after ten, twenty, thirty more?”
Photo Credit: MC =) via Compfight cc

The first is theoretical. The debate surrounding the vote has succeeded in conflating huge issues including artistic expression, freedom of speech, ‘rape culture’, feminism, and responsible censorship much to the weariness of the majority of students. Flapping about in the muddied puddle of the debate, it is easy to forget what it is actually about; sexism, censorship, or whether or not you like Blurred Lines.

By framing the issue as a ban, a blacklisting and condemnation of a single flash in the pan pop song has stoked up conflict where there fundamentally is none as all camps think that the song displays misogynistic elements which must be challenged. The way in the which the debate has been presented has been detrimental to our confrontation of sexism and is the product of adversarial, petty student politics which disenchant the masses. And it is these masses that we must engage if we have any hope of challenging sexism and misogyny both on campus and in the wider society.

It is not those who vote this week that we need to reach, it is those who do not even know it is taking place. How have we allowed an ageing Californian pop star to dictate our discourse on gender, sexuality and equality within the University of Exeter? It illustrates the reactive, short-term nature of the campaigns’ and the Guild’s outlook instead of kick starting a long term, proactive stance to tackle sexism on campus.

The second is practical, concerning the limited scope of the vote. We must put this vote in context, look beyond this week and ask ourselves where do we go from here? If the ‘Condemn and Remove’ campaign wins what does that mean? What if ‘Don’t Censor Exeter’ prevails? What are the next steps? I’m not about to dive down the slippery censorship slope, instead I will remain on the level plane.

Both campaigns pride themselves on democratic legitimacy, therefore subsequent debates surrounding yet-to-be-released misogynistic mashups will have to be voted upon. Likewise, the debate will also need to take retrospective turn, analysing, voting upon and condemning the whole back catalogue of popular music in order to remain consistent. This would potentially mean hundreds of votes taking place to condemn (and/or remove) popular songs.

Does the Exeter student body really have the appetite to do this? We already seem weary after one and a half votes, what will we be like after ten, twenty, thirty more? “Disengaged, disillusioned and disheartened” is the answer. Attacking individual songs in this way is an exercise in perpetual pointlessness, that only serves to numb students to the problem of sexism in our community. It will only increase the exasperated cries of “What’s all the fuss about?”, “Why does this matter?”, and, “typical busy-bodies” already commonplace throughout campus.

Votes should only be considered in extreme circumstances when gridlock has been reached on a student specific issue, so that their power and legitimacy are not diluted or trivialised. There is no deadlock on this issue, there is actually consensus. It is easy to disagree, to argue, to criticise as the respective campaigns have proved, what is difficult is to move beyond the and grandstanding to tangible, inclusive action.

A vote for no change (when validated in this way), is not a vote to do nothing, nor is it rejecting the importance of the issues at hand. It is vote to stop this ridiculous process of framing an issue in terms of ban. This vote will be worthless, regardless of the outcome, if the protagonists involved on all sides do not come together to promote a broad-based, awareness driven campaign to tackle sexism. Enough with the point scoring, vote counting and banner-waving. This approach does not stop sexual abuse, the sexualisation of society, or objectification of women.

Just look at The Tab Exeter’s Finest Fresher 2013 competition, which has run parallel to the Robin Thicke motion, and in which a tenth of the university voted in. Students were judged like vegetables at a country fair, and the Thicke campaigns, who have been too caught up in the minutia of their own vote, have failed to comment or condemn. It is shocking that these two events can occur in such exclusive terms.

Calum Humphreys

[poll id=”51″]

Do you agree with Calum? Are we having too many student votes? Leave a comment below or write to the Comment team at the Exeposé Comment Facebook Group or on Twitter @CommentExepose.

The Thicke of It: Don't Censor Exeter

With voting now open, Harry Chamberlain argues that “the Guild should not ban the Robin Thicke song ‘Blurred Lines’ from Guild premises or student media, because we do not believe in censoring Exeter students.”

Banning ‘Blurred Lines’ from being played in Guild outlets is nothing short of an attempt at censorship. Free speech is a prerequisite of a democracy rather than a subject to be voted on and such a motion ignores the very reason we need this freedom; in order to be able to discuss the key issues at the heart of the debate, sexism in the music industry.

Image credits: Don’t Censor Exeter

I would like to make it completely clear: I am not here to defend Robin Thicke or his song. There are numerous good reasons that the Ban campaign raises as to why the portrayal of women should be addressed – in the appropriate way. However, the motion submitted definitely does not attempt to address the place of sexualisation in a the music industry correctly; instead it unacceptably infringes on students’ rights.

The underlying message that the anti-censorship campaign wishes to send is that should students object to a song and its message, they do not then have the right to impose their beliefs on others by restricting their ability to hear it played in the Ram or the Lemmy. Some Lemmy DJs would not like to see the song forcibly removed from their repertoire as its catchy tune which encourages many people to dance, and ultimately enjoy themselves.What message does it send as a university, an institution that thrives on disagreement and dissensus, if we do not confront and debate questionable media but just deny others access to it?

I am not denying that the lyrics to ‘Blurred Lines’ may be interpreted as misogynistic, and that we need to address society’s wider attitudes towards women, especially in the music industry, but banning it is simply not the way to go about it.That is why we are supporting a third option, for The Guild to condemn the lyrics of the song through a press release, but still allow it to be played by Guild run outlets, such as The Lemmy and The Ram. This provides all students with a clear choice, and prevents the polarisation of the issue, as happened in The Sun debate last year.

Exeposé’s most recent print issue saw a page dedicated to imploring its readers to vote for a ban, providing little or no balance to the debate. The Students’ Guild prides themselves on being neutral on all student votes, however in this recent campaign this has not been the case in print. The original motion, to ban the song, has been lost. The campaign to ban the song has now been renamed ‘Condemn and Remove’, and despite all the SABBs agreeing that the phrase ‘Ban’ should be used, so far this has not been enforced. Let’s not forget that it is the Guild themselves who fund Exeposé’s £16,000/year printing costs. Perhaps the Guild should reconsider their funding for printing a newspaper that fails to inform its readers effectively, and fails to echo their balanced view on contentious topics such as this one.

Harry Chamberlain

[poll id=”51″]

For the views of Comment’s Online Editors on the Blurred Lines referendum as a whole, read The Thicke of It: Comment on Blurred Lines. Do you agree with Harry? Can censorship ever be justified? Can we afford to leave sexist attitudes unchallenged?  Leave a comment below or write to the Comment team at the Exeposé Comment Facebook Group or on Twitter @CommentExepose.

How can we get more kids reading?

Would your childhood have been the same without reading? For many people the answer would definitely be no, and yet increasing numbers of children are growing up without reading at all outside of school. Emma Lock looks at why this is happening and what can be done to prevent it…

Photo Credit: Christchurch City Libraries

A recent survey by the National Literacy Trust has found that the number of children reading outside school has dropped by almost 25% since 2005. The survey also picked up on increasing negative attitudes towards reading, with more than one in five of those responding saying that they would be ‘embarrassed’ if their peers caught them reading.

Of course, one survey is not a reason to panic about some kind of impending literary doom – reading is still a popular activity for many children, and hopefully it always will be. But this report did strike me as incredibly sad – my childhood wouldn’t have been the same without all the books I devoured, and I still have very fond memories of my favourites. The idea that some kids could be missing out on all those great literary experiences because they’re embarrassed to be seen with a book is frankly tragic. It highlights the wider issue of negative attitudes towards reading, something many will be aware of – particularly those of us who spent our childhood in the company of books and may have been on the receiving end of lazy stereotyping as a result.

There is a clear contradiction present in attitudes towards reading. We (rightly) place great importance on reading and everything it can do for children; but the word ‘bookish’ is still a derogatory term, and saying that a child ‘likes reading’ is laden with allusions to being quiet or dull. There is no point moaning about children not reading enough and then, in the next breath, dismissing those that do as being somehow boring or weird – that’s not going to persuade anyone.

Photo Credit: adwriter

The children’s fiction market is exciting and diverse, and it seems a massive waste for any child to feel unable to make the most of it. Children’s literature isn’t dominated by The Famous Five anymore – JK Rowling has been widely credited with bringing reading to a generation, and while reading has traditionally been seen as a ‘girly’ pursuit, in recent years the fiction market aimed at boys has progressed in leaps and bounds, particularly fuelled by authors such as Anthony Horowitz and Charlie Higson. The Twilight saga has done a similar thing for teenage girls; much as I might personally detest its helpless, co-dependent undead-chasing, there’s little arguing with the fact that it (and the litany of dubious vampire fiction it spawned) has made reading acceptable for an age group of girls often on the cusp of abandoning a childhood love of reading for their own undead-chasing activities.

Of course, there will always be some children who just don’t like reading, and that’s absolutely fine. What we need to do is make it OK for kids to like books, so that those who do like reading feel able to do so without worrying about whether people will judge them for it. It shouldn’t be any more embarrassing to be seen with a book than it is to be seen with a football or a hairbrush. It is a long shot – we’re going against generations of stereotypes and playground teasing here – but attitudes can be changed, and if it means that children feel happier and more comfortable reading, it’s definitely worth the effort.

The message is quite simple: books are awesome.

Emma Lock, Books Team

Tomes or Tombs?

James Crouch examines the future of books and why he thinks they will survive…

Photo Credits: Flickr user DrabikPany

If you’re an author and you’re sitting on a first-class train leaving any London terminus, you’ll probably be expecting a P45 form from your publisher sometime soon. Every journey I’ve gone on all I see are people scoffing their free coffee, tea and biscuits while looking at Kindle or another device for electronically reading books.

Even for newspapers, if you are a Times reader you are often offered a digital package alongside the standard package, where no paper is involved at all. When you think about how expensive books probably are to make compared to merely pulling together a few hundred e-pages and creating an ‘Add To Basket’ button, no wonder people are worried about the death of books.

Fortunately though, the world is not always as it seems. Although it may seem like e-books are the new easy-to- get thing, let’s remember all the things real books still have going for them. For a start, Kindles are a decently heavy investment before you actually get anything to read. This is something I think most people will regard as a waste of money – as I do quite frankly. Especially because of how easy and cheap books have become – and I mean that as a compliment!

Amazon has become an Aladdin’s cave for almost any book you could possibly want. Big, small, thin, fat, used, new, hardback, paperback, they have the book for you. Used Twilight Saga? One whole penny? Go on, why not. Brand new prints of the classics such as the brick-like War and Peace for only two quid? Sure thing! Books have never been so cheap or so easily available.

Photo Credits: Flickr user geishaboy500

Then there are the personal things, such as gifts. A book I got from my Nan had a lovely handwritten message that you just couldn’t put on an e-book – without ruining the screen that is. And of course, nothing beats a good hardback book. Just looking at some leather-bound old books forces you to believe that they’ll be around forever.

And if that’s not enough to restore your faith in humanity’s faithful relationship with the printed and published word, just think about universities. Considering how long it takes to photocopy a chapter of some obscure thinker on the topic of methodological philosophy or some such nonsense, how long do you really think it’s going to be until the Forum Library is digitised? You’ll be waiting until kingdom come, which is, coincidentally, roughly speaking how long I think books will still be a part of our lives for.

James Crouch

The View From Behind The Bar: Do You Drink Too Much?

James Crouch gives a word of warning from the other side of the bar

When you find yourself slowly waking up at lunchtime, with a crinkled wine -stained shirt and a small army marching through your cranial cavity, you start to wonder “what on earth happened to me last night?” Over the next few hours you find embarrassing Facebook photos, texts you don’t remember sending and disgruntled housemates who only got a few hours sleep because of your inability to use door keys in the conventional manner. If most of the above applies to you, you drink too much.

Photo Credit – The Telegraph

Before the shock horror in reply to that statement breaks out amongst the student readership, remember that not exactly every morning is like this. Feeling groggy the morning after is usual, but feeling like you need a half-day to re-enter the human race and pin down your worrying 90 minute meander between Mega Kebab and Mount Pleasant is not.

It’s an important distinction between being drunk, and being smashed like a piñata. To not know why you have a bruise, who you spoke to, where you went, or what you threw up on is really so dangerous and terrifying when you think about it sober. I quite frankly am amazed that my only injuries from four years in Exeter amount to a burn mark on my hand and some slight scar tissue on my elbow – from when I used it to break a fall and, unsuccessfully, save my chips.

I know most who know me will say I’m the pot calling the kettle black, but I know whereof I speak. No one sets out to get “crunk” really, because when we all say that, we do so forgetting something crucial. We say it not just forgetting what that stage feels like, we actually forget that stage exists. We mean: get so drunk we don’t have a care in the world. We don’t mean: get so drunk that the link between you and reality becomes drowned by eight sambucca shots and a Jaegerbomb chaser.

Although, I’m still guilty, I think everyone who gets seriously trolleyed (as in, needs to be carried out in a trolley) on a regular basis should probably keep a drinks diary, so they try and guesstimate what their limit is. The top benefit being it’ll save you money, we all know that the black hole your memory was sucked into happens to also be repository for your missing cash as well.

Alternatively, if financial renuneration doesn’t quite grab you, think of all the near misses you had with cars  whilst crossing Sidwell Street, the countless dodgy men you’ve probably almost been mugged by but somehow got away unscathed, or (for me) that time I ended up in the park at the end of Priory Road almost in tears at three in the morning completely lost. Embarrassing, mostly because I live not two minutes from where I was standing. But seriously: get drunk, have a great time, because you’re never going to have a better place to do it. But if this article is testament to more nights out than not for you, then just think about safety a little bit, because the last thing you want to do is not be able to drink another day

 James Crouch

Lifestyle Editors remind you to drink responsibly 

Opinion: EA-Star Wars

EA have acquired a deal with LucasFilm and Disney enabling the publishing giant to develop core Star Wars titles in a multi-year, multi-title agreement.

This follows the earlier announcement that LucasArts was to be closed down, which had cast doubt over the future of the Star Wars franchise in the gaming market. Now, EA have the power of BioWare, DICE, and Visceral Games to carry the brand into the next generation of gaming.

But what could each studio bring to the table?

BioWare

With the massive success of the Mass Effect franchise, it’s clear that the Canadian studio could handle the task of creating a huge sci-fi universe to enjoy. The studio isn’t unfamiliar with licensed franchises, either, with Baldur’s Gate and Neverwinter Nights being born from the Dungeons & Dragons universe, as well as having developed Star Wars: The Old Republic.

The developer’s most recent franchises, Mass Effect and Dragon Age, are very similar in several respects, such as character development, romances, and dialogue options. While these components give each title that recognisable BioWare flair, incorporating these elements into another franchise could give the impression that the studio is running out of ideas.

It’s a risk that the developer might have to take if they choose this direction with their SW title: stick with their well-established styles, or try something new.

Creating a Star Wars title with a large cast of characters, epic scope and an immersive world could lead to the birth of a highly successful licensed series of games – something that the industry has arguably lacked for a rather long time.

DICE

Best-known for developing the Battlefield series, they will probably be the first asked to create a title similar to their flagship franchise. Given that Star Wars: First Assault was an FPS already in development before the LucasArts closure, DICE seem like the best fit to either continue the development on the title.

They could even give fans the shooter they’ve been waiting for since 2005 – Battlefront III. Imagine Battlefield, but with tie-fighters, AT-ATs, and epic sci-fi battlegrounds, and you’re on-course for a potentially awesome game. A Star Wars FPS seems inevitable, and EA would arguably be foolish to let another studio take the reins on that potential.

Visceral Games

Also tipped for developing a Star Wars title in the future, though the direction they might take is entirely unclear. The developer most recently became recognisable for the Dead Space series, though the studio’s previous titles almost entirely stem from already-established franchises, including games based on The Lord of the Rings and Ian Fleming’s 007.

From their history, it seems like Visceral could take a more traditional ‘action’ route with the Star Wars name, possibly somewhat akin to Star Wars: 1313, which (unfortunately) went down with LucasArts. One thing that would really make a Star Wars title stand out from the crowd is something that I wish was present in the original films: grit.

The lost ‘StarWars: 1313’

For me, the Star Wars universe lacked a dark heart that could have made it more interesting and engaging. The narratives were too epic sci-fi cliché, the Sith too typically ‘evil’. Visceral could flesh this out to a more mature audience by expanding on the backgrounds of potential villains as well as the Sith allure, perhaps in a similar style to ‘unitology’ found within Dead Space.

Expanding character alignment beyond simple ‘black and white’ and into the more complex and engaging ‘morally grey’ could create an interesting character-driven action title that would depart from the typical Disney formula that the casual titles are likely to take.

What next?

The future of Star Wars in the core market sits entirely in EA’s hands, then, and its studios certainly have the credentials to create a potentially stellar game if given the creative freedom to do so. However, with EA’s clear focus on action and shooter titles, innovation may be low on the list of priorities, likely resulting in each studio sticking to what they do best.

With the Star Wars franchise starting a new chapter under Disney’s reign, now might be the best time to break free and give the core fans what they’ve been waiting for.

 

Jack Merrell

The best and the worst of Exeter

Photo credits to Kate Gray

Last week we decided to do a survey of Exeter students to find out what they considered the best and the worst things about our University…in exchange for cake.

We had a wide range of responses, from the sensible (“Best: the academic staff is really good”) to the plain ridiculous (“Best: the variety of nightlife”). Some suggestions were never classified as either best or worst, so we thought we’d share some of these delights with you.

Before you continue, we hasten to add that this survey was undertaken lightheartedly and the results should not be taken as fact or as Exeposé’s own opinion.

Some things were felt unanimously however. The rain and the hills came off worst in the survey- no surprises there. The Forum and Exeter’s proximity to the beach were the most popular.

We have compiled your responses and demonstrated them beautifully with visual data! See below for pie charts, and share your views on this by commenting.

Exeposé Online Comment

Beautiful visual data (in the form of pie chart) credits to Online Comment

Some of the more curious suggestions…

Best:	Worst:
Banter	Rahs
Squirrels everywhere	People socialising in the library
Callum Baker (x 4)	Washing machine prices
Darts	Ellitism (sic)
Ultimate Frisbee	Not enough people play Ultimate FrisbeeWordpress problems

La Haine (Hate) for World Cinema?

It was after having seen a review of Lore, a film depicting Germany’s devastation in the immediate aftermath of World War Two, focusing on the children of Nazi supporters whose beliefs are challenged by their dependence on a Jewish refugee, that I broached the possibility of seeing it with a housemate one evening. However, his initial ambivalence quickly turned to an outright no, as soon as I explained that it was a non-Hollywood German language movie and would consequently be subtitled.

 

Image Credit: Rotten Tomatoes

On asking the other four of my housemates whether they’d rather see the latest Die Hard movie, Argo or Lore, to see if this was a shared feeling, three of them chose the Hollywood option. In addition, all had never heard of Lore, and one went so far as to say that he’d rather kill himself than choose either option (but that if he had to choose, it would be Die Hard). Well at least that technically isn’t a vote for Hollywood then.

So why does there seem to be at best, apathy, to World Cinema (films from non-English speaking countries, often in a foreign language) and at worst, aversion?

 

For many people, going to the cinema is a form of escapism. They want to enjoy the spectacle. They want to find themselves lost in a fictional world away from a rosy reality of unemployment, a rising cost of living and one star rated local food establishments (here’s looking at you Mega Kebab).

 

This isn’t to say that this experience is impossible with a foreign subtitled movie, far from it in fact. La Haine (Hate) is a striking, gritty portrayal of the struggles of three friends from different ethnic backgrounds living in the banlieues of Paris. The extensive use of argot (slang) and verlan (inversion of syllables in words to create slang) alone allows an insight into a marginalized part of French culture that just could not be replicated in an English language Hollywood context.

 

Despite this, if we consider the top 20 films released in the UK and Ireland in 2010 according to the BFI, there is not one World cinema film in the list.

 

This is not surprising though after a brief comparison of Exeter’s three main cinemas (Odeon, Vue and Picturehouse). Of the three, only Picturehouse in a given week will be screening World cinema. From Thursday 7^th March to the following Thursday, only one World cinema film from this year (Lore, although released at festivals in 2012) in terms of widespread release, is being screened.

 

Three other World cinema films from the last four years are being screened too: Amour, Eleanor’s Secret and Long Live the Family, each with one screening. This amounts to a mere seven screenings out of a total 60 of over ten films. At least they are being screened; in fact, they are over-represented if we consider the lack of screenings at other cinema chains and the total absence of World cinema in the BFI list.

 

A preconceived notion of World cinema as being intellectual and pretentious is culpable for this almost automatic rejection of World cinema. This is then perpetuated by a tendency of sacrificing the screening of popular mainstream World cinema films – already suffering from a lack of exposure due to inadequate distribution – in favour of art-house (independent, non-conventional and intentionally non-mainstream films) World cinema, which fit this notion. A notable exception here is Amélie, which was intended for an international audience and demonstrates the great success that World cinema, in particular popular World cinema, can have with adequate distribution.

 

Regardless, when faced with a choice between the next installment in a popular series with a favourite actor or a relatively unknown foreign movie, the average person is going to choose what they are comfortable with.

 

Nevertheless, I remain hopeful that in the future, World cinema will account for a much greater percentage of British weekly screenings and that they will feature in the yearly top 20… even if this would still have no impact on my housemates and possibly result in the end for one of them.

 

Benjamin Lewis