After work, I was making my way to the carpark, riding the down escalator when in front of me, three uni students with Singaporean / Malaysian accents (I can't really tell the difference to be honest) were talking fairly loudly and animatedly.
Then it struck me.
Wow. It's been almost 10 years now that I was in their shoes, getting my undergraduate degree, making new friends and having the time of my life.
It got me thinking about the rate of change in our lives. I've got a new hypothesis that the rate of change in our lives seems to start out really quick, then slows down into a somewhat steady pace (as we pass retirement, and pretty much towards our little urn of ashes).
When you're a baby, your biggest changes start with crawling, then walking, then running, jumping, speaking your first words, etc.
When you're retired, your biggest changes tend to be maybe a trip to an exotic country, or trying a new type of food for the first time. There's just not as much room left for 'life-changing' experiences.
Perhaps it's because given the length of available 'lifetime' left, there're a lot less options for 'life changing events' or a willingness to change for a limited amount of benefit. Imagine if you'd been walking your whole life, and a year before your expiry date, there's a new pill that gives you a 50% chance of growing wings and flying, or shortens your life by 10%.
I'm kind of hoping that when I get old, I'll be the sort of old fuddy-duddy who's trying to learn a new language, or pick up the new 4-d holographic gaming console from e-bay galactica. But more likely than not, I'll be happy trying to teach the dog a new trick.
Speaking of dogs. I watched "I am Legend" last night. If you've seen it, do you get the feeling like they ran out of budget somewhere halfway through the movie ? Don't read further if you intend to watch the movie.
The saddest part of the show for me was when he had to kill his dog. That's a pretty low cost effort right there. No dramas, just a quiet snap of the neck, and a fake dog.
Also, in Scriptwriting 101 (yes. I did actually take that class believe it or not), one of the basic templates for a story line is when events build up towards a climax, and then the hero overcomes adversity and wins.
I kinda felt like the climatic conflict was like a balloon made of bubble gum. It grew and grew, and then it kinda leaked without really getting the big *POP* that you'd expect.
For the most part of the movie. I was actually thinking "how the heck is this movie supposed to end on a happy note ? If EVERYONE's dead or a 'darkseeker', unless he creates a counter-virus that is also transmissible, or makes it his life's mission to go around injecting everyone with his antidote, there's never going to be a 'happy ever after' ending.
Which is why I thought it summed up pretty weakly at the end when all they did for a conclusion was have a very low budget shot of a 'fort' and two guards opening it, with a voiceover explaining what happened next.
I reckon they spent most of their budget building the empty new york city sets.
