Entering a new dimension of dissipated The origins of unoriginality with 3-D re-releases By Jacey Gibb, Opinions Editor t appears that Hollywood has done it again. In a theatrical wasteland of comic book adaptations, sequels, prequels, reboots, remakes, book adaptations, and television show-inspired feature films, it seems the film industry has figured out a way to claim the number one spot at the box office without having to integrate an ounce of originality. This period in time shall from here onwards be known as the 3-D re- releasedemic. While you might be able to label the 3-D re-release event of Toy Story 1+2 last year as patient zero of this outbreak, I am giving them a free pass this time because they were in promotion of the upcoming release of Toy Story 3. That being said, the first classic film to have its soul removed and outsides encoded with 3-D technology was The Lion King 3D. A staple to any normal human being’s childhood, The Lion King 3D gives you the opportunity to pay $15 to sit in a theatre with strangers and watch the same movie that you still own on VHS. A deal that sounds too good to be true! Unfortunately I was one of the many who fell for this trick, as my friends offered to take me to a showing as a belated birthday present. Instead of criticizing the movie for its obvious cash-grab characteristics, I found myself asking: “what time?” The film was its usual enjoyable self but I was actually surprised at how rough some of the graphics looked. Certain scenes were crisper than fresh romaine, but others didn’t seem to live up to the re-released name. 12 But the overall presentation of The Lion King isn’t what has me perturbed to the point where I need to seek solace in writing an article about it. Rather, it’s that the success of this re-release (61 million dollars as of last weekend) marks the end of the need to be creative in the movie industry. A fortune has been made off of the simple idea of: “hey, let’s show them a movie they’ ve already seen before. But we’ll say it’s in 3-D and not really do anything to utilize it!” Well played, Hollywood. At least when you look at the rogue’s gallery of remakes and reboots sauntering around, there are a few noticeable differences between them and the originals, even if all that is is a new cast doing the exact same things (I’m looking at you, Let Me In). These changes are evidence that the process of filming a movie still exists but unfortunately, I think it is in jeopardy. Next on the 3-D re-released chopping block we have Titanic in April 2012, with plans already underway to re-release Top Gun, Ratatouille, and the entire Star Wars saga. Really guys? Titanic? What, am I supposed to be expecting that Rose’s boobs pop out at me during the couch scene? I think I’ll pass and save the $15 for my weekend’s bar tab. Yes, we are currently facing a new menace in the movie industry whose motto seems to be: “More of the exact same. Change is bad.” Quite possibly the only way we are going to be able to beat this is by avoiding the lure of nostalgia and demanding something more. Otherwise, it won’t be long before films like Catwoman get re-released in 3-D. Me-ouch! Ethics: A no-brainer? Classroom dissections shouldn’t be a grey matter By Joel MacKenzie he professor hauled a heavy, white bucket to the front of the class. It sloshed with her steps, each time whisking tiny fumes of alcohol and formaldehyde into the air—a smell closely attached in my mind to the wide- eyed, empty expression of a stiff, yellow preserved frog from grade 11 biology class, I had taken my and my partner’s tray to our table, put on my equipment, and waited expectantly for our specimen to be delivered, but the sight of the moist, red- gray half of a sheep’s brain plopping down in front of me was too much. Entranced by not specifically killed for the experiment. Their brains must have been extracted from those already being used for their meat. And my walking out of the class would have not changed the fact that the sheep whose brain I was using was dead, and that the brain was going to be dissected anyways. Though I use the opposite argument in support of vegetarianism: one less piece of meat eaten is one less animal that will be killed the next time, in compensation for that one piece not bought, which has an effect when done on a larger scale. I justified it because I felt like I had to. I felt helpless. My teacher told me I had to take part in the experiment. Though “The sheep whose brain | was using did not need to die in order for me to understand the topic.” passion, I stood and shouted, “I will not partake!” exiting the class to the echo of what began as one student clapping and ended with an eruption of cheers and a parade of every other student, liberated by my act of defiance to stand up for what they had believed in all along. Well, I wish. The truth is I took part in the lab with everyone else. I dissected the brain, for science, and I learned from it. Although, at times, unable to control myself, I did reveal to others (surely encouraging their own suppressed feelings) a raised lip of disgust, and even a groan! Long live the revolution. I really wanted to skip out on the dissection. The sheep whose brain I was using did not need to die in order for me to understand the topic. Certainly the fifteen- or-so used for the class altogether did not need to die. But, of course, the sheep were I was offered the chance to merely watch my partner do the operation, this failed to address the issues that worried me. The ethics behind the use of animal products has gained much popularity in recent years, and I’m surprised our school does not reflect this. At the least, a warning could be placed in this course’s description that a dissection is involved. Or students who do not want to partake could be considered before the ordering of the organs, giving them some sense of power over the amount of animal products being used for their education. Easily, online resources could be offered. Or even anatomical brain model options (cheap ones can be found at www.anatomicalsystems. com). I know why Douglas has not recognized this increasingly popular issue: none of its members have brought it up. I think it’s about time someone did.