Recently I was thinking of common themes that are used in successful logos. The ticket that started me on this exciting train of thought was the use of red, blue, green, and yellow in logos. This colour combination is everywhere. Primary colours are generally seen as less professional, but in the world of computers, it's everywhere. Most of you will see it every day; it's the colours of the Windows flag. But these four colours are also used in the Google logo and their icon for Chrome, eBay’s logo, and also AVG antivirus. Now these are all big names, with really well-designed logos. But they all use the same basic 4 colour combination.

This initial idea led me on to see if I could find any other patterns, the first immediately obvious one was animals. Mozilla’s Firefox and Thunderbird, the great open source IM client Pidgin, Twitter, Grooveshark and the Linux penguin are just the examples that spring immediately to mind. I'm sure there are some glaringly obvious ones I’ve missed, but there really are a lot. I don’t know what's caused this trend, but I guess animals just make good, recognisable mascots. While researching this topic I found this great article on Circlebox Blog, which shows many more, slightly less obvious examples. But it shows I’m not the only one who's noticed this.

So there you have it. If you're branding anything that will appear on a screen, make the logo an animal and make it from primary colours. You'll thank me for it.

We of Random Tales are proud to announce we are part of a select group of websites whose names have spoonerisms; yes that's right, we are Tandem Rails! The only possible definition for this new phrase is some sort of railway-style track that can only be ridden on with two-seated bicycles...

I have a theory.

It's not a very interesting one, but it's still a theory. However, we will get to that later. In the mean time... jars. Now, I have three points. Firstly, stereotypically, and by stereotypically I mean that I certainly do not have a sexist opinion but that this is what the majority of people often think or joke about, men are stronger than women. Secondly, stereotypically women are generally associated with cooking, and by that I mean whether being in a household family or a couple, the female usually does the cooking. My third point, jars are often used in cooking, be it jam or pickles we often need to use jars. So with all this knowledge, which, may I add, is quite general knowledge, why do jar companies insist on making jars so god damn hard to open?

I am sure everyone has experienced a time where they're mother or a female friend has asked them to open a jar, I ask you wonderful Random Tales reader, why does this even happen? If it is well known that females will often the be the ones opening jars and that they find it very hard to do so, why, I ask, are they so difficult to open? Some may say it is to do with keeping the contents fresh or well sealed, however, water bottles are well sealed and yet still easy to open.

So, what can we gain from this? That jar companies do not realize their mistake and keep jars like this because (again stereotypically) they are probably male businessmen and have no trouble opening jars themselves? Or that jar companies are infact fake shell companies that are led by fascist, sexist neo-nazis who want women to feel demeaned by not being able to open jars and having to ask men to do it?

You decide.

Though you may say that I have made an interesting point, the subject of jars is merely a way to present my real one. At the start of this post I mentioned a theory and you will know the name of this theory from the title. However, Jar Theory is not what I have just been talking about, I shall explain what it is now.

My theory is this: I believe that you can make a blog post about almost anything, even the most boring of things, and make them a (mildly on my part) interesting read, simply by talking about it intelligently. I call it Jar Theory merely because of the context I have used to convey it to you.

Now I know this is a life changing revelation and that you will almost certainly now be comparing me to the likes of Albert Einstein and Isaac Newton, but seriously, take all that new loving attention you have for me and focus it on Random Tales and make sure you stay tuned for more borinterestingly (boring topic but interesting all the same. Yes a theory and I've made up a word, I'm on a roll) posts in the future.

...but not in the way that you might think. Before we get started, apologies for the prolonged absence of any content, here at RandomTales HQ we were all talking a well earned rest over Christmas. But we're all back now, and better than ever.

One especially good thing that we all took away from the holidays was seeing the new film Avatar. I hardly even need to mention that we saw it in glorious IMAX 3D.

If you haven't worked it out by now, it was brilliant. A spellbinding, breathtaking, magical experience. If you haven't seen it, book your tickets now. And, if they haven't all sold out, do it the justice it deserves and see it at the IMAX. But all that said, it just wasn't brilliant in the way I expected it to be.

Many a brilliant film has had its brilliance ignored because it didn't live up to the hype surrounding it. But even as the most hyped up film of the year, 14 years in the making and costing $300 million, I wasn't worried. You see, the films that get spoiled by the hype are the ones with intricate subtlety, the ones you have to watch time and time again to appreciate the little nuances. But Avatar isn't subtle by any stretch of the imagination. Its extortionate price tag confirms that. No, Avatar was never going to be crushed under the weight of people’s expectations because it is a hyper film. It’s the kind of film that needs critics screaming at people about how brilliant it's going to be, because when you're watching it screams that at you itself.

Avatar wins on the strength of its breathtaking special effects. The storyline is good, if a little lacking in depth, and the characters, while not especially well acted, are believable and relatable enough so as not to detract from the experience, but on their own this would be a mediocre film. The sheer spectacle of seeing a vast, lush forest, with every leaf of every plant rustling in the breeze, light filtering through the trees and strange, glowing, jellyfish-like creatures floating about is an experience not to be missed, and is the real reason Avatar exists. It's a test of how realistic CGI can be. That said, it has such a level of immersion that I actually felt drained after watching it, as though I had been fighting the battles and suffering the losses myself. But they didn't make me sad. It's the kind of film that just doesn't stir up many emotions, and while that may not be a problem for most people, who just go to see it for the experience, for me that means it will never be the truly great film it was intended to be, never be a classic that will be loved for years to come.

And it's not all effects, the political commentary is there, reminding us of the evils of capitalism and mankind's inherent greed, but the core problem with Avatar is its lack of, for want of a better word, heart. It just doesn't make you feel anything other than wow, look at the pretty lights.

Now this review has sounded very negative. But don't get me wrong, it's a hugely enjoyable experience. At the time, you'll love it. But as you start to analyse it in the days that follow, some aspects just don't come up to scratch. So while avatar is a masterpiece, a beautiful film with astonishing attention to detail and unprecedented realism, the wondrous shell of beauty isn't quite enough to disguise the emptiness underneath. So go out there, watch it, love it, just don't look into it too deeply. And please, do it justice, see it on the biggest screen you can.