BOOM: Headshot!

Violence in the media turns our children into homicidal psychopaths... apparently.

Remember when you first watched the opening scene of Saving Private Ryan? Remember how gruesome it was, and how it made you feel about the grim battlefield of Normandy? Remember how it introduced you to the main characters in one of the most critically acclaimed films of all time?

Ok, now imagine that whole scene if the soldiers had no guns, fired no bullets, and bled no blood... if I were you I'd head for the door.

The 'Politically Correct' version of Saving Private Ryan in South Park.

All the guns have been replaced by walkie-talkies.

Violence is always a buzzing hive of controversy in the media - the concern that the films and games that kids are engrossed in today are way too bloody and destructive... but without the blood and the shooting and fighting, who wants to pay for something they can't invest in?

It is true that so-called 'high-impact' games like Grand Theft Auto have been the source of blame for youngsters who've gone and stole a car or shot someone, but when you look at how many people play the GTA games on a regular basis, and what percentage of them go on murderous killing sprees it's not hard to see that it's such a vast minority that it raises doubt about how much of an impact media like that have on the human psyche.

And when it comes to fast-paced First-Person-Shooters (FPS) like Call of Duty, then why are they so loved by the very soldiers that the game is personifying (the very men and women who specialise and surround themselves in such 'violence')? These games are even being used by the US military to encourage potential recruits and train drone pilots, so surely all this 'senseless killing' is helping maintain world peace.

For anybody who has doubts over the moral fibre of shooters like Call of Duty then please read this article published shortly after it's release.

All in all, violence has a huge place in the media around us today, and rightly so. Any concerns about corrupting our nation's youth should be addressed with the parents and guardians, rather than the developers who are just trying to give people a fun, immersive experience.

Otherwise some of the most beloved and enjoyable films and games are going to be heavily censored - and nobody wants that.

...trust me: I played the Australian version of Left 4 Dead 2

To Infinity And Beyond

'Sci-Fi is only for geeks, I just like movies with aliens and robots in space'

The Sci-Fi genre has probably been the fastest growing genre in film over the last few decades. The disgusting aliens, destructive machines, and abundance of explosions strike a chord with at least 80% of the male population from the age of about 12. Sci-Fi movies are amongst the easiest to watch because they rarely require you to think about a complicated plot, or any ulterior motives that the characters may be hiding, or even to question your own moral choices. It's just "Here's an alien, they're bad. The humans aren't as strong or advanced as they are but they'll fight anyway cos they're the good guys".

You don't understand why they're doing what they're doing but there's shiny things and a lot of movement that keeps your attention.

We laughed with shiny keys as babies,

now we laugh at shiny robots as grown-ups

But, in the end, sci-fi (at least to me, a male 19 year old university animation student) is the chance for people to re-experience all those silly games we all played as kids... only this time it's on the cinema screen in front of you or at the behest of the the xbox/ps3 controller in your hands.

Out With The Old, In With The New

New Media - that just means more modernised special effects, right?

Clearly that's what separates movies of the 21st century from those of the 20th, and film-makers are more than eager to make use of rapidly evolving technology to jazz up their visual story-telling methods. But don't get me wrong, I enjoy watching the evolution of the narrative process... and it give's budding animators like myself an ever-growing career to enjoy.

Story-telling in New Media is much more immersive for the audience

thanks to updated animation technology

Notice that it's only been over the last 20 or so years that new and alternative methods of story-telling have emerged: older films have had a set pattern for them - beginning, middle and end, with a hero and villain, all viewed through regular cinematic perspective (basically, through the camera lens). But now, with the emergence of films like The Blair Witch Project, Paranormal Activity, and District 9 (to name a few) where the use of a handheld camera or a documentary-style setup makes the audience believe that what's being portrayed on the screen could happen that way in real life. And with films like Vantage Point which replays the same 25 minute event, but through the perspectives of 8 different characters with the audience discovering something new through each character's eyes.

The counter-argument is that New Media is just a new way of telling the same old story over again. The biggest culprit is Avatar which spent billions in production, with some of the most realistic and immersive visual effects ever seen in cinema... but all of this to basically rehash the story of Dances with Wolves. The same goes for District 9 too: the segregation of aliens in South African society is reminiscent of the apartheid era, as well as having distinct similarities to the film Alien Nation.

They're the bad guys... right?

Everybody knows what it takes to make a hero: valour, honour, courage, a desire for justice, but the most important thing to make a hero is a villain.

I mean, where would Batman be without the Joker, or Sherlock Homes without Professor Moriarty,or the Doctor without the Master? Of course the only one suited to stop the ultimate bad guy is the ultimate good guy. The thing is... what makes a character good or bad?

We as an audience are expected to make a clear distinction between the righteous and the evil, and which characters in the story act for each. But when I really looked at what makes good and evil I found myself questioning the moral choices and motivations which suddenly meant that they weren't so bad.

In short, I'm wondering just how bad the bad guys really are.

The Doctor and The Master are opposing equals - binary opposites

Let's look at a TV villain that we've all come to recognise over their decades on our screens... The Cybermen.

The Cybermen, for those who don't know, are enemies of the Doctor in Doctor Who who, as regular humans, kept adding and modifying their bodies with cybernetics until they just became like robots. The reason that they're the bad guys is because they want to do the same to the rest of humanity, and we don't really approve of that. But in their eyes (or whatever they have), converting humans to Cybermen is improving them, it's a favour, they're effectively trying to help humanity... and isn't that one of those traits that make them good guys?

The great thing about considering this 'grey area' when viewing characters is that it extends to people in real life, and the horrific lens through which we view these people is reduced a little bit.

Now, I'm not going to start saying stuff like "Hitler was really a nice guy", but did he not bring his country out of economic depression and make it strong enough to take on the world?

Also why must we, the audience, automatically have to believe the supposed hero's testimony and judgement? Of course they're going to point to their opponents and say "I don't like them", but isn't that exactly what they're going to say about our supposed hero?

When Lost finally settled it's story theme down to an ultimate conflict between a man in white and a man in black, I naturally assumed that the Man In Black (whose name was never given) was the villain. But as the series developed and we got to explore that character and find out just why he wants to defeat the man in white, Jacob, I found myself questioning just who was in the right.The Man In Black was lied to as a child about the world outside of the Island and so he wanted to see it, whilst Jacob was set on keeping him trapped there. But in Jacob's quest to find a successor (and to prove the goodness in people) he brought people against their knowledge and will to the Island where nearly all of them suffered and died. And the one lucky person to survive this gauntlet would have to stay until they themselves were killed. This doesn't seem very noble or heroic, and it actually was a point raised in the show - whether or not the good guy was really the good guy.

This is the challenge I submit to you, oh-humble-reader, have a look at the different heroes and villains and wonder just who is who.