...
Buttercup, I've repeated, "as you wish,"
over and over and over again
anything you prefer assistance with
I'll get right on it, just let me begin
by saying "it's plain I'm common wesley
right now, and you crave dread pirate roberts,"
of course, interpret that from simple plea
blasted "as you wish" everything I blurt
feel like a moron, try not to trip when
you say, "farm boy, fill these with water, please"
can't you see this peasant is who I've been,
in my future I brave barbarous seas
"true love: you think this happens every day?"
in my mind when "as you wish" all I say.
...
Written for Friday Poetically with Brian Miller.
Showing posts with label movies. Show all posts
Showing posts with label movies. Show all posts
Friday, May 13
Wednesday, April 6
Universal Zombies Themes, Part 2
You wouldn't know it from outside my blog, but for some reason, this post has the most page hits of anything I've written so far. Apparently some college professor somewhere has a class with an emphasis on the walking dead, so lots of sweaty students are typing "zombie themes" into Google and ending up here. Don't worry about it, I've been there. Your secret is safe with me.
I'm also fully aware (as it has been thus since Shakespeare's day) that the players should conform to the wishes of their audience, so here is another thought on zombies as a trope. Steal it...ahem, quote me and provide a proper MLA style citation. Or whatever. Just be aware that the dusty dude with glasses and a red pen can use the internet, too.
So here goes:
For the majority of movie history, zombies have been predominately one type: Sad. They wail, they shuffle around, they don't particularly look like a fun lot. I'd even go so far as to say they were depressed. I mean, maybe that's why they eat brains, just to make themselves feel a tad better before they burst apart at the seams. They aren't even really that scary, since they are so freaking slow. I mean, one dude with a baseball bat can take out at least twenty without any effort. Come on Hollywood, hear that? It's called suspension of disbelief shattering.
Then around 2002 we had a new type of zombie, the angry type. You can thank 28 Days Later for that one. Finally, a film with zombies in it that is actually scary. Rage zombies are pissed off, and oh yeah, they can run really fast. They are also pumped with adrenaline, so that means they are like undead PCP junkies with super strength. Think Incredible Hulk.
Still, rage zombies, while fun to watch, aren't necessarily built for one of the major tools in filmmaking: Suspense. It's tough to build up to a scare in an audience when the zombies are so stinking fast, and your entire movie changes to a shlocky surprise flick at every turn if the zombies aren't laying in wait for an ambush somewhere.
Okay, so we have sad and angry zombies, what are we missing? What major emotional state has been yet to be explored fully by zombie filmmakers as a whole? I'll tell you what:
Happiness.
That's right. There should be happy zombies. Think Wall-E. Think of zombies that actually wanted to become zombies in the first place. Imagine the themes possible in an exploration of that. You'd have protagonists that would have to wrestle with the fundamental questions of an eternal reward, right here on Earth, that would be better than living as a "normal" human. Let me list a few places where a movie like this could be applicable to our modern world:
That's just a drop in the bucket of what I'm talking about. Sure, there have been movies that tangentially explore these themes, but minus the zombies. Get some gory zombies running around with giant smiles on their faces, have Woody Harrelson say, "Man, I'd sure like to be happy again and see my little pup," and get some drama going with this stuff. Add in some clowns for giggles, just to be sure.
So get to it Hollywood. Make some freaking Happiness Zombies.
I'm also fully aware (as it has been thus since Shakespeare's day) that the players should conform to the wishes of their audience, so here is another thought on zombies as a trope. Steal it...ahem, quote me and provide a proper MLA style citation. Or whatever. Just be aware that the dusty dude with glasses and a red pen can use the internet, too.
So here goes:
For the majority of movie history, zombies have been predominately one type: Sad. They wail, they shuffle around, they don't particularly look like a fun lot. I'd even go so far as to say they were depressed. I mean, maybe that's why they eat brains, just to make themselves feel a tad better before they burst apart at the seams. They aren't even really that scary, since they are so freaking slow. I mean, one dude with a baseball bat can take out at least twenty without any effort. Come on Hollywood, hear that? It's called suspension of disbelief shattering.
Then around 2002 we had a new type of zombie, the angry type. You can thank 28 Days Later for that one. Finally, a film with zombies in it that is actually scary. Rage zombies are pissed off, and oh yeah, they can run really fast. They are also pumped with adrenaline, so that means they are like undead PCP junkies with super strength. Think Incredible Hulk.
Still, rage zombies, while fun to watch, aren't necessarily built for one of the major tools in filmmaking: Suspense. It's tough to build up to a scare in an audience when the zombies are so stinking fast, and your entire movie changes to a shlocky surprise flick at every turn if the zombies aren't laying in wait for an ambush somewhere.
Okay, so we have sad and angry zombies, what are we missing? What major emotional state has been yet to be explored fully by zombie filmmakers as a whole? I'll tell you what:
Happiness.
That's right. There should be happy zombies. Think Wall-E. Think of zombies that actually wanted to become zombies in the first place. Imagine the themes possible in an exploration of that. You'd have protagonists that would have to wrestle with the fundamental questions of an eternal reward, right here on Earth, that would be better than living as a "normal" human. Let me list a few places where a movie like this could be applicable to our modern world:
- video games (particularly MMOs)
- religion (specifically heaven)
- pharmaceuticals (a pill that makes you a happy zombie)
- humans as secondary lifeforms (alien or machine or whatever zookeepers, think Matrix)
- advertising
- government
- movies (talk about self-referential)
- relationships (eHarmony type sites)
That's just a drop in the bucket of what I'm talking about. Sure, there have been movies that tangentially explore these themes, but minus the zombies. Get some gory zombies running around with giant smiles on their faces, have Woody Harrelson say, "Man, I'd sure like to be happy again and see my little pup," and get some drama going with this stuff. Add in some clowns for giggles, just to be sure.
So get to it Hollywood. Make some freaking Happiness Zombies.
Tuesday, January 18
Six Things I Hate About Your Movie
1) Awkward Moments. There are times in my life where I have not been stellar. Memories I'd rather forget, and yet, your movie has some idiot saying or doing something that makes me embarrassed for them, which in turn churns up nausea-inducing flashbacks to high school/crowds/parties/girls/hazing. Trust me, you don't want me feeling queasy about your movie.
So stop it with the awkward speech, awkward confession, awkward meet-up, awkward sex, awkward-whatever-is-in-your-twisted-past-that-you-thought-looked-super-on-film.
2) Groups of Friends that Don't Look Like Friends. "Hey, we are all friends! We sit around and drink at nondescript bars and don't have real conversations, and we have nothing in common whatsoever! Let's move on to the plot!"
I hate your characters if they are comprised of six stereotypes that shouldn't belong. A protagonist, a stud, a geek, a slut, a wallflower, and a prude do not mystically group up for no reason. Give them a common purpose for being together. Pick something, anything. Make them all like kayaking, I don't give a shit. Just please don't make it any easier for me to not give a damn about your characters.
3) Invincible Normal People. If a non-superhero gets shot, punched, kicked in the face, thrown off a building, flung out of a moving vehicle, or whatever idiotic thing you think looks cool, please have them react accordingly. I've watched enough Mythbusters to know that Buster the crash test dummy is royally fucked over by one quarter the damage done to movie characters.
Yet, in Transformers 2, three normal humans in a car are dropped from the sky, a fall of about ten stories, and they are perfectly fine because of the airbags (even the dude in the backseat!) In Iron Man, Tony Stark gets flung about 100 yards in the desert, and he's fine because he's inside a steel suit he made in a cave. Sure.
So please, if your protagonist must be punched in the jaw, please break it, and have them be in agony for the next couple weeks. Your script will be greater because of it, I promise.
4) People Meeting Each Other. "Hi. Hi. I'm Jub Jub Binky. I'm Goo Goo Montana. I like peanuts. So do I. Do you like penguins? No. Me neither. Okay. Okay. Let's have a scene with conflict now. Sure, let's do that."
Cut out the beginning of every scene where people are meeting each other for the first time. I'm a smart dude. I can fill in the blanks. If you want two people to meet, do this: a) show the two people for 3 seconds. b) cut to them having a conflict. We can figure out that they met and did stuff before that point, and will be grateful that we didn't have to watch the tedious parts. Give us conflict now, not later, because by the time it gets to later, we will be too bored to care about your dumbass characters.
5) People Drinking/Eating. I realize that your actors are not talented enough to hold the audience's attention without a prop, so I understand your need to fill their hands with generic alcoholic drinks. However, might I suggest that you give these actions some characterization? Boring choices make your characters (guess what?) boring.
At the beginning of Chaos Theory, the so-called random Mom (who is pissed off that her husband is so bland), makes waffles, sausage and bacon. What, you thought I wouldn't notice? Movies are for watching, derp! Random Mom should serve leftover Chinese food and Pop Tarts for breakfast. Those would be memorable choices, and give the characters something to react to and argue over. Bing! Conflict!
Now I'm not saying every meal has to be filled with random crap. Just please please please please fit the choices on screen to who the characters are. Random Mom would not have a clean counter either, or a bowl filled with glorious fruit. She'd have clutter everywhere, and the sink would be filled with dirty dishes. Random Mom is a mess, so show her that way. We notice, and so should you.
6) Horrible Extras. In Hellboy 2, there is a scene in an underground troll market, with lots of despicable faerie creatures running around. Or actually it isn't, since there are only a couple of CGI monsters, while the rest of the crowd is made up of extras in robes with bags on their heads. We could have had a super cool backdrop, instead, what we got was Hellboy walking around a bunch of people with shitty costumes.
I get why you are doing this. If you make your extras look marvelous, then there is the chance that they might upstage your main characters, and we'll pay more attention to the background than the foreground. However, that just means your main characters are boring. Make everything exciting, and we'll be excited about your movie. Your movie is only as good as the weakest link, and if your weakest link sucks, then your movie sucks. Funny how that works.
So stop it with the awkward speech, awkward confession, awkward meet-up, awkward sex, awkward-whatever-is-in-your-twisted-past-that-you-thought-looked-super-on-film.
2) Groups of Friends that Don't Look Like Friends. "Hey, we are all friends! We sit around and drink at nondescript bars and don't have real conversations, and we have nothing in common whatsoever! Let's move on to the plot!"
I hate your characters if they are comprised of six stereotypes that shouldn't belong. A protagonist, a stud, a geek, a slut, a wallflower, and a prude do not mystically group up for no reason. Give them a common purpose for being together. Pick something, anything. Make them all like kayaking, I don't give a shit. Just please don't make it any easier for me to not give a damn about your characters.
3) Invincible Normal People. If a non-superhero gets shot, punched, kicked in the face, thrown off a building, flung out of a moving vehicle, or whatever idiotic thing you think looks cool, please have them react accordingly. I've watched enough Mythbusters to know that Buster the crash test dummy is royally fucked over by one quarter the damage done to movie characters.
Yet, in Transformers 2, three normal humans in a car are dropped from the sky, a fall of about ten stories, and they are perfectly fine because of the airbags (even the dude in the backseat!) In Iron Man, Tony Stark gets flung about 100 yards in the desert, and he's fine because he's inside a steel suit he made in a cave. Sure.
So please, if your protagonist must be punched in the jaw, please break it, and have them be in agony for the next couple weeks. Your script will be greater because of it, I promise.
4) People Meeting Each Other. "Hi. Hi. I'm Jub Jub Binky. I'm Goo Goo Montana. I like peanuts. So do I. Do you like penguins? No. Me neither. Okay. Okay. Let's have a scene with conflict now. Sure, let's do that."
Cut out the beginning of every scene where people are meeting each other for the first time. I'm a smart dude. I can fill in the blanks. If you want two people to meet, do this: a) show the two people for 3 seconds. b) cut to them having a conflict. We can figure out that they met and did stuff before that point, and will be grateful that we didn't have to watch the tedious parts. Give us conflict now, not later, because by the time it gets to later, we will be too bored to care about your dumbass characters.
5) People Drinking/Eating. I realize that your actors are not talented enough to hold the audience's attention without a prop, so I understand your need to fill their hands with generic alcoholic drinks. However, might I suggest that you give these actions some characterization? Boring choices make your characters (guess what?) boring.
At the beginning of Chaos Theory, the so-called random Mom (who is pissed off that her husband is so bland), makes waffles, sausage and bacon. What, you thought I wouldn't notice? Movies are for watching, derp! Random Mom should serve leftover Chinese food and Pop Tarts for breakfast. Those would be memorable choices, and give the characters something to react to and argue over. Bing! Conflict!
Now I'm not saying every meal has to be filled with random crap. Just please please please please fit the choices on screen to who the characters are. Random Mom would not have a clean counter either, or a bowl filled with glorious fruit. She'd have clutter everywhere, and the sink would be filled with dirty dishes. Random Mom is a mess, so show her that way. We notice, and so should you.
6) Horrible Extras. In Hellboy 2, there is a scene in an underground troll market, with lots of despicable faerie creatures running around. Or actually it isn't, since there are only a couple of CGI monsters, while the rest of the crowd is made up of extras in robes with bags on their heads. We could have had a super cool backdrop, instead, what we got was Hellboy walking around a bunch of people with shitty costumes.
I get why you are doing this. If you make your extras look marvelous, then there is the chance that they might upstage your main characters, and we'll pay more attention to the background than the foreground. However, that just means your main characters are boring. Make everything exciting, and we'll be excited about your movie. Your movie is only as good as the weakest link, and if your weakest link sucks, then your movie sucks. Funny how that works.
Wednesday, January 12
What RPGs Should Learn From Movies
As you know, I'm currently playing Dragon Age: Origins, and while I'm certainly enjoying myself, I'm also bored out of my mind. I think this game would have been far more effective as a storytelling platform had it taken a thing or two from another medium.
My BA was in Creative Arts with an emphasis in film, while I'm not trying to toot my own horn here, I do think that I've been exposed to a fair amount of quality narratives in not only the movie structure, but in literature and fine arts as well. I am a holistic artist, which is why I have such an interest in video games in the first place, considering they combine all aspects of every other art form in existence already. I'm not writing this post because I despise video games and think they can never be art, but because I am passionate about them, and am absolutely convinced that video games are art.
So here are the places where I think Dragon Age fails, and hopefully future video game narratives can pick up the slack:
1) Video Games Should Reward You For Conflict. Way back since dudes in togas, we've understood as artists that conflict is compelling. In fact, I would almost be inclined to say that you can't have art without strife, but I'd rather not derail this post. Suffice it to say that the most common form of artistic expression demonstrates forces in opposition.
Yet, in Dragon Age: Origins, when I talk to my companions, I get points for agreeing with them, and I lose points for disagreeing with them. If I disagree with them a whole bunch, they get pissed off, and will leave my party. This means I am rewarded for passive behavior, and punished for instigating conflict.
Here is a perfect example where gameplay and storytelling are at odds with each other, instead of working together to keep the player involved in the world. The designers have set up a Catch-22 where if I want the most points, I'm bored, but if I seek to end my boredom, I lose points.
Future games, if they wish to be taken seriously as narratives, must switch this dynamic around to something counter-intuitive: players must be rewarded for disagreeing with companions, and punished for agreeing with them. Then not only is the player happy with their bonus points, but they are also excited by the conflict in your story.
2) Cut Out Your Exposition. Or at least, if you absolutely must have it, stick it in an obscure place that players never have to experience, and do not reward players for reading it. No one gives a crap about the country of Ferelden, or the Ash Warriors, or the history of your fantasy land. It is crap. It seriously is. Audiences want a story, and a story is conflict, not a history lesson.
If the exposition does not flow from conflict, then it should be cut, cut, cut, cut, cut. If you don't show it on screen, then it is unimportant, and is actively hurting the immersion of your players. And by "show it onscreen," I'm talking about the old but true "show, don't tell," which RPG designers seem to feel doesn't apply to them. Bull shit. Your explanations disguised as dialogue are terrible, especially when you make me read them to gain points for agreeing with your NPCs.
Don't treat me like an idiot. If you want me to know that mages can become abominations through demonic possession, then freaking show me a mage getting possessed by a demon. Don't make me listen to voice actors tell me about it. Fail.
In short, show me your world through scenes of conflict. That is the first thing beginning film scriptwriters learn, and it is a lesson every game designer needs to know.
My BA was in Creative Arts with an emphasis in film, while I'm not trying to toot my own horn here, I do think that I've been exposed to a fair amount of quality narratives in not only the movie structure, but in literature and fine arts as well. I am a holistic artist, which is why I have such an interest in video games in the first place, considering they combine all aspects of every other art form in existence already. I'm not writing this post because I despise video games and think they can never be art, but because I am passionate about them, and am absolutely convinced that video games are art.
So here are the places where I think Dragon Age fails, and hopefully future video game narratives can pick up the slack:
1) Video Games Should Reward You For Conflict. Way back since dudes in togas, we've understood as artists that conflict is compelling. In fact, I would almost be inclined to say that you can't have art without strife, but I'd rather not derail this post. Suffice it to say that the most common form of artistic expression demonstrates forces in opposition.
Yet, in Dragon Age: Origins, when I talk to my companions, I get points for agreeing with them, and I lose points for disagreeing with them. If I disagree with them a whole bunch, they get pissed off, and will leave my party. This means I am rewarded for passive behavior, and punished for instigating conflict.
Here is a perfect example where gameplay and storytelling are at odds with each other, instead of working together to keep the player involved in the world. The designers have set up a Catch-22 where if I want the most points, I'm bored, but if I seek to end my boredom, I lose points.
Future games, if they wish to be taken seriously as narratives, must switch this dynamic around to something counter-intuitive: players must be rewarded for disagreeing with companions, and punished for agreeing with them. Then not only is the player happy with their bonus points, but they are also excited by the conflict in your story.
2) Cut Out Your Exposition. Or at least, if you absolutely must have it, stick it in an obscure place that players never have to experience, and do not reward players for reading it. No one gives a crap about the country of Ferelden, or the Ash Warriors, or the history of your fantasy land. It is crap. It seriously is. Audiences want a story, and a story is conflict, not a history lesson.
If the exposition does not flow from conflict, then it should be cut, cut, cut, cut, cut. If you don't show it on screen, then it is unimportant, and is actively hurting the immersion of your players. And by "show it onscreen," I'm talking about the old but true "show, don't tell," which RPG designers seem to feel doesn't apply to them. Bull shit. Your explanations disguised as dialogue are terrible, especially when you make me read them to gain points for agreeing with your NPCs.
Don't treat me like an idiot. If you want me to know that mages can become abominations through demonic possession, then freaking show me a mage getting possessed by a demon. Don't make me listen to voice actors tell me about it. Fail.
In short, show me your world through scenes of conflict. That is the first thing beginning film scriptwriters learn, and it is a lesson every game designer needs to know.
Wednesday, January 5
Dragon Age and the Tea Cups
Whenever you make a character for a roleplaying game, it's a part of you. You pick a name, you generally pick the appearance, and you might even go so far as to pick the personality or profession of the character. This means you are emotionally invested right out the gate, unlike a movie or book where you have to learn to care about the characters involved.
So when I played Dragon Age: Origins (yes, I'm a cheapskate and waited until Steam had the "Complete Edition" for $25) and my male elf mage was able to choose to have sex with a male elf rogue, it effected me more than I thought it would.
I mean, a part of me chose to have sex with a virtual male. That is a pretty big deal for me. I mean, I have no choice when the dudes in Brokeback Mountain get in on, because I'm a passive observer, but here I am, actively choosing a virtual homosexual relationship. Here's an analogy:
Say we are at Disneyland. I don't like the Tea Cups. Don't get me wrong, if other people ride the Tea Cups, that's fine with me. That's their business. It doesn't hurt me when they ride the Tea Cups, and it doesn't seem to hurt them, so I respect it. I don't hate the Tea Cups, I just don't like them. Vice versa, if I like the Matterhorn, I wouldn't expect the people who like the Tea Cups to absolutely like the Matterhorn, but I would expect them to respect that I do.
So here I am, playing a game, and bam, a part of me chooses to ride the Tea Cups. (Of course, it's not the same thing, since it was more akin to watching a home video of someone who snuck a camera on the ride, but you get the picture.)
While I was watching two male elves have sex (one of whom was me!), I felt aversion. Now don't get me wrong. This wasn't hatred. I just didn't like it. In the same way that I would get nausea from riding the Tea Cups, and not like that experience, I also did not like this experience.
However, I am not the type to start carrying torches and berate Bioware and Electronic Arts for putting homosexuality in their game. Far from it. I'm self-reflexive enough to wonder why I felt the way I did. Here are the two points I took away from that experience:
So when I played Dragon Age: Origins (yes, I'm a cheapskate and waited until Steam had the "Complete Edition" for $25) and my male elf mage was able to choose to have sex with a male elf rogue, it effected me more than I thought it would.
I mean, a part of me chose to have sex with a virtual male. That is a pretty big deal for me. I mean, I have no choice when the dudes in Brokeback Mountain get in on, because I'm a passive observer, but here I am, actively choosing a virtual homosexual relationship. Here's an analogy:
Say we are at Disneyland. I don't like the Tea Cups. Don't get me wrong, if other people ride the Tea Cups, that's fine with me. That's their business. It doesn't hurt me when they ride the Tea Cups, and it doesn't seem to hurt them, so I respect it. I don't hate the Tea Cups, I just don't like them. Vice versa, if I like the Matterhorn, I wouldn't expect the people who like the Tea Cups to absolutely like the Matterhorn, but I would expect them to respect that I do.
So here I am, playing a game, and bam, a part of me chooses to ride the Tea Cups. (Of course, it's not the same thing, since it was more akin to watching a home video of someone who snuck a camera on the ride, but you get the picture.)
While I was watching two male elves have sex (one of whom was me!), I felt aversion. Now don't get me wrong. This wasn't hatred. I just didn't like it. In the same way that I would get nausea from riding the Tea Cups, and not like that experience, I also did not like this experience.
However, I am not the type to start carrying torches and berate Bioware and Electronic Arts for putting homosexuality in their game. Far from it. I'm self-reflexive enough to wonder why I felt the way I did. Here are the two points I took away from that experience:
- If a part of me chooses to be homosexual, and I don't like it, then that means I'm not homosexual. Which sounds obvious, but we are treading into the future, and these virtual spaces we have set up can blur the lines, and it is better to explore these concepts, rather than ignore the elephant in the room. Especially when other fellow heterosexuals often turn their aversion for homosexuality into hatred, which is counterproductive to society.
- Second, I wonder if homosexuals feel the same aversion whenever they make an RPG character and choose to have a heterosexual relationship. If that is the case, then I'm sorry that there are an overabundance of heterosexual relationships in RPGs, and I wish for a future where there are more games like Dragon Age, not less.
Tuesday, November 16
Why Star Wars Sucks as an MMO
Star Wars is a great space opera. The original movies, regardless of whether they ripped off Akira Kurosawa or Battlestar Galactica, are as fresh today as the day they came out. The extended world works for people, as do the prequels to a certain extent. Single player video games have the potential to be awesome when set in the Star Wars universe, as evidenced by Knights of the Old Republic. They can also be pretty bad, as Force Unleashed 2 proved.
However, there are two major hurdles that any Star Wars MMO must overcome in order to be a successful when multiple people are involved, and both of these obstacles are inherent to the game world itself. I first experienced these when playing the old tabletop d6 RPG, and they will continue to be true even as Bioware releases a shinier version of the same concept.
1) Star Wars is a Dead World.
This means that anything that happened in the movies, books, or the extended storylines is unchangeable. If you decide you want to kill Darth Vader, or go out with Princess Leia, you are on your own. Anything set around the same time period as the movies must somehow adapt to that history, or it "doesn't count." This means that your character is bound by the vision of the developers, and the developers are bound by the vision of George Lucas, and even Lucas is bound by the layers and layers of history that have already been told about the Star Wars universe.
Anything not set around the time period of the original movies is fair game, however, which is why an MMO set either way before or after the movies could possibly work. However, this too is a gamble, as a developer has nothing in the game world to work with, since Luke, Leia, Darth Vader, etc...are either not born yet, or dead.
The Bioware MMO is taking that bet, by releasing a game set in the far past of the Star Wars universe, where they can make up whatever they want, with the downside that none of it has any relevance to the content we are used to. (For example, we can't go hang out with Han Solo.)
2) The Force Sucks
I'm sorry to say, it does. It's great for movies. It is absolutely horrible in a game.
Oh, they've been trying to spruce it up, make it flashy for the kiddies. They've been upping the ante on the Force, where at first it was really hard to chuck some rocks, while now Force users can jump around like rabbits or make people explode.
However, you've got this science fiction world, you don't have magic, or psionics, or mutations, or any cool alien races. Instead, you have two factions: dudes with lightsabers that are OMFGWTFBBQultrapowerful, and wimpy dudes with blasters. Like when Darth Vader pwns Han Solo without even trying.
Now that said, in a game they can easily tweak it so that lightsaber characters are as strong as blaster characters, but that is not entirely the point. Force users get all sorts of neat abilities that non-Force users don't get. What do the normal people of the world gain in exchange? Yay, they can repair a droid, use a jetpack, or ride a tauntaun. Woo.
The Force is further limited by #1 above, because the game developers can't let it do anything. They can't let you shoot fireballs, summon monsters, teleport, time travel, go invisible, or one of the many, many things that you haven't seen in the movies that don't fit the "vision" of the world.
Not to mention that any discussion of the Force is inherently linked to the morality of the Force, because that's the way the game world is set up. Like you can't use Force lightning without being a bad guy, because that is a bad guy power. Even though hacking people in half with a laser sword is just fine. I mean, you've got a bunch of so-called good people that can't be emotional at all, can't have sex, can't have relationships, and there are plenty of those dudes running around. Then you have the evil dudes, who constantly let their desires run rampant, and none of them got it on with a hot Twi'lek? Right.
...
In short, everyone wants to play a kickass Jedi/Sith with awesome powers and a lightsaber, and nobody wants to play a second-class normal person. You've got a crappy source of "magic" with crappy rules attached to it, in a dead world where everything neat has already happened, and your character plays second fiddle to the NPCs, and you play third fiddle to other players if you happen to play a non-Force character.
However, there are two major hurdles that any Star Wars MMO must overcome in order to be a successful when multiple people are involved, and both of these obstacles are inherent to the game world itself. I first experienced these when playing the old tabletop d6 RPG, and they will continue to be true even as Bioware releases a shinier version of the same concept.
1) Star Wars is a Dead World.
This means that anything that happened in the movies, books, or the extended storylines is unchangeable. If you decide you want to kill Darth Vader, or go out with Princess Leia, you are on your own. Anything set around the same time period as the movies must somehow adapt to that history, or it "doesn't count." This means that your character is bound by the vision of the developers, and the developers are bound by the vision of George Lucas, and even Lucas is bound by the layers and layers of history that have already been told about the Star Wars universe.
Anything not set around the time period of the original movies is fair game, however, which is why an MMO set either way before or after the movies could possibly work. However, this too is a gamble, as a developer has nothing in the game world to work with, since Luke, Leia, Darth Vader, etc...are either not born yet, or dead.
The Bioware MMO is taking that bet, by releasing a game set in the far past of the Star Wars universe, where they can make up whatever they want, with the downside that none of it has any relevance to the content we are used to. (For example, we can't go hang out with Han Solo.)
2) The Force Sucks
I'm sorry to say, it does. It's great for movies. It is absolutely horrible in a game.
Oh, they've been trying to spruce it up, make it flashy for the kiddies. They've been upping the ante on the Force, where at first it was really hard to chuck some rocks, while now Force users can jump around like rabbits or make people explode.
However, you've got this science fiction world, you don't have magic, or psionics, or mutations, or any cool alien races. Instead, you have two factions: dudes with lightsabers that are OMFGWTFBBQultrapowerful, and wimpy dudes with blasters. Like when Darth Vader pwns Han Solo without even trying.
Now that said, in a game they can easily tweak it so that lightsaber characters are as strong as blaster characters, but that is not entirely the point. Force users get all sorts of neat abilities that non-Force users don't get. What do the normal people of the world gain in exchange? Yay, they can repair a droid, use a jetpack, or ride a tauntaun. Woo.
The Force is further limited by #1 above, because the game developers can't let it do anything. They can't let you shoot fireballs, summon monsters, teleport, time travel, go invisible, or one of the many, many things that you haven't seen in the movies that don't fit the "vision" of the world.
Not to mention that any discussion of the Force is inherently linked to the morality of the Force, because that's the way the game world is set up. Like you can't use Force lightning without being a bad guy, because that is a bad guy power. Even though hacking people in half with a laser sword is just fine. I mean, you've got a bunch of so-called good people that can't be emotional at all, can't have sex, can't have relationships, and there are plenty of those dudes running around. Then you have the evil dudes, who constantly let their desires run rampant, and none of them got it on with a hot Twi'lek? Right.
...
In short, everyone wants to play a kickass Jedi/Sith with awesome powers and a lightsaber, and nobody wants to play a second-class normal person. You've got a crappy source of "magic" with crappy rules attached to it, in a dead world where everything neat has already happened, and your character plays second fiddle to the NPCs, and you play third fiddle to other players if you happen to play a non-Force character.
One Sentence Movie Reviews #2
Barton Fink
When they say you should only write about what you know, that doesn't mean that writers should write movies about writers that write movies about writers.
La Dolce Vita
Some Italian dude does a bunch of stuff for three hours, and if you can survive the boredom, you might decide this is one of the greatest movies ever, and decide to write a college thesis on it.
Son of Rambow
Societies are comprised of tenuous relationships between individuals in order to protect those people from other societies, at the cost of their individual freedoms...also: French people are cooler than the British people.
Let the Right One In
Vampires have feelings too...or, she's going to train him to be a serial killer and eventually eat him later: your call.
La Jetee
The catalyst for the development of time travel is some horndog's desire to hit it with a chick in the past.
The Good, the Bad, the Weird
Only one man can kill this many Japanese.
Yojimbo
One of the best action movies ever, and the action sequences suck.
Bubba Ho-Tep
Elvis doesn't know what a safe deposit box is.
G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra
If you are about to marry a hot blonde, never blow up your future brother-in-law with an air strike.
The Color of Magic, p 1&2
Terry Pratchett's books are a guilty pleasure of mine, so when I say that this movie is crap, I mean it with the best possible intentions.
When they say you should only write about what you know, that doesn't mean that writers should write movies about writers that write movies about writers.
La Dolce Vita
Some Italian dude does a bunch of stuff for three hours, and if you can survive the boredom, you might decide this is one of the greatest movies ever, and decide to write a college thesis on it.
Son of Rambow
Societies are comprised of tenuous relationships between individuals in order to protect those people from other societies, at the cost of their individual freedoms...also: French people are cooler than the British people.
Let the Right One In
Vampires have feelings too...or, she's going to train him to be a serial killer and eventually eat him later: your call.
La Jetee
The catalyst for the development of time travel is some horndog's desire to hit it with a chick in the past.
The Good, the Bad, the Weird
Only one man can kill this many Japanese.
Yojimbo
One of the best action movies ever, and the action sequences suck.
Bubba Ho-Tep
Elvis doesn't know what a safe deposit box is.
G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra
If you are about to marry a hot blonde, never blow up your future brother-in-law with an air strike.
The Color of Magic, p 1&2
Terry Pratchett's books are a guilty pleasure of mine, so when I say that this movie is crap, I mean it with the best possible intentions.
Sunday, November 14
One Sentence Movie Reviews #1
I have streaming Netflix now, which means I am stuffing my brain with the culture of the past 50 years or so. I've decided to condense these films into as tiny of a space as possible, because after all, Brevity is the Soul of the Internet.
(Warning, I use spoilers regularly, because only innocents are regularly surprised by anything, and if you are using the world wide web, I highly doubt you are innocent.)
...
Moon
A monopoly uses clones for forced labor, and the clones are sad.
Who is Harry Nilsson?
Some dude gets famous, has a neat singing voice that lots of people dig, then drinks himself to death in front of his wife and five kids.
Legion
God is ticked off at us because we are supposed to be nice to each other, even though He sends lots of zombies and an asshole with razor wings to come slaughter us, and when we win, we have learned our lesson, so we carry around lots of guns and ammo in the back of our station wagon.
Year One
Even douchebags could score in the Old Testament.
Cashback
Walmart employees can stop time and take off your underwear, but it's okay because they're artsy.
Alice in Wonderland
If you are imagining shit, and you just dumped my rich son in front of all of our family and friends, you aren't crazy, and we'll let you sail our boat to China.
The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus
Terry Gilliam is a fucking genius.
Gamer
If you let Dexter replace your brain with nanites, you might be an idiot.
Annie Hall
Awkward smart people can talk a lot about nothing in particular, eventually have sex, and Woody Allen thinks it's probably worth it.
Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow
A dead mad scientist can make giant robots, dinosaurs, and a hot android chick, but two jocks and a blonde can't figure out how to bomb a nuclear missile with their airplanes.
Eden Log
A European security guard goes spelunking, is brainwashed into an environmentalist by plants, then has sex with a tree and cries about it.
...
(Warning, I use spoilers regularly, because only innocents are regularly surprised by anything, and if you are using the world wide web, I highly doubt you are innocent.)
...
Moon
A monopoly uses clones for forced labor, and the clones are sad.
Who is Harry Nilsson?
Some dude gets famous, has a neat singing voice that lots of people dig, then drinks himself to death in front of his wife and five kids.
Legion
God is ticked off at us because we are supposed to be nice to each other, even though He sends lots of zombies and an asshole with razor wings to come slaughter us, and when we win, we have learned our lesson, so we carry around lots of guns and ammo in the back of our station wagon.
Year One
Even douchebags could score in the Old Testament.
Cashback
Walmart employees can stop time and take off your underwear, but it's okay because they're artsy.
Alice in Wonderland
If you are imagining shit, and you just dumped my rich son in front of all of our family and friends, you aren't crazy, and we'll let you sail our boat to China.
The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus
Terry Gilliam is a fucking genius.
Gamer
If you let Dexter replace your brain with nanites, you might be an idiot.
Annie Hall
Awkward smart people can talk a lot about nothing in particular, eventually have sex, and Woody Allen thinks it's probably worth it.
Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow
A dead mad scientist can make giant robots, dinosaurs, and a hot android chick, but two jocks and a blonde can't figure out how to bomb a nuclear missile with their airplanes.
Eden Log
A European security guard goes spelunking, is brainwashed into an environmentalist by plants, then has sex with a tree and cries about it.
...
Thursday, November 11
Hey Woody, You Sound Sick
My kids have both Buzz Lightyear and Woody at my parent's house. I think my mom got them at garage sales after Toy Story 1&2, because that's generally how she gets all my kids' toys. These are the foot tall, talking ones, and when you press the buttons on Buzz, Tim Allen's voice says things like, "I'm awake from hypersleep, and ready for action!"
So my four year old pulls the string and Woody says, "Reach for the sky!" Only it's not Woody, it's some other guy. Not to knock the voice actor, but no one can replicate Hanks' southwestern drawl, or his characteristic twang. He has a one-in-a-million sound to his voice, and I'm sorry, but this Woody is not Tom Hanks.
My son says, "Hey, that's not Woody."
I think for a second, and I do what every parent should do in this situation: I lie. "Yeah, it's Woody, he's just sick," I say.
My two year old says, "Woody's sick!"
I say, "That's right. Woody's sick."
She nods sagely and says, "He gotta feel better."
Now I understand that Tom Hanks' time is pretty valuable. Obviously, spending 15 minutes saying 5 lines for a toy is tough when you are a big time movie star. I can see that.
I can also see that whoever made the toy probably didn't have the profit margin to pay Tom Hanks for his valuable time, and so in order to lower the price of the toy, they used some schmuck off the street. Perhaps there was hand wrangling going on, with people in suits haggling over how much that 15 minutes would cost, and buckets of lawyers writing contracts and managers disapproving them. Perhaps there were meetings upon meetings, taking up countless hours of time, with backroom negotiations that fell apart at the last moment, while a guy with a leather chair and an important looking phone screams at an intern to bring him some coffee.
That's all well and good. I'm not really trying to blame anyone. It's not Tom Hanks' fault. It's not the fault of any one business. It's not even the fault of the lady who bought the cheaper toy in the first place, and then resold it to my mom for a fraction of the cost. (It's not her fault either, by the way.)
However, something broke along the way. Somewhere along the line, the system failed, and Woody wasn't Woody for my kids. He was some other dude, some other cowboy that my kids didn't know.
So when my kids left my parents house, my son dragged Buzz Lightyear into the car, and we were off to defeat Emperor Zurg, while Woody was left behind in the big green toy bucket. Neither of my kids wanted to bring him along.
After all, Woody was sick.
So my four year old pulls the string and Woody says, "Reach for the sky!" Only it's not Woody, it's some other guy. Not to knock the voice actor, but no one can replicate Hanks' southwestern drawl, or his characteristic twang. He has a one-in-a-million sound to his voice, and I'm sorry, but this Woody is not Tom Hanks.
My son says, "Hey, that's not Woody."
I think for a second, and I do what every parent should do in this situation: I lie. "Yeah, it's Woody, he's just sick," I say.
My two year old says, "Woody's sick!"
I say, "That's right. Woody's sick."
She nods sagely and says, "He gotta feel better."
Now I understand that Tom Hanks' time is pretty valuable. Obviously, spending 15 minutes saying 5 lines for a toy is tough when you are a big time movie star. I can see that.
I can also see that whoever made the toy probably didn't have the profit margin to pay Tom Hanks for his valuable time, and so in order to lower the price of the toy, they used some schmuck off the street. Perhaps there was hand wrangling going on, with people in suits haggling over how much that 15 minutes would cost, and buckets of lawyers writing contracts and managers disapproving them. Perhaps there were meetings upon meetings, taking up countless hours of time, with backroom negotiations that fell apart at the last moment, while a guy with a leather chair and an important looking phone screams at an intern to bring him some coffee.
That's all well and good. I'm not really trying to blame anyone. It's not Tom Hanks' fault. It's not the fault of any one business. It's not even the fault of the lady who bought the cheaper toy in the first place, and then resold it to my mom for a fraction of the cost. (It's not her fault either, by the way.)
However, something broke along the way. Somewhere along the line, the system failed, and Woody wasn't Woody for my kids. He was some other dude, some other cowboy that my kids didn't know.
So when my kids left my parents house, my son dragged Buzz Lightyear into the car, and we were off to defeat Emperor Zurg, while Woody was left behind in the big green toy bucket. Neither of my kids wanted to bring him along.
After all, Woody was sick.
Friday, October 30
The Early Beatles
Just watched this, which is a documentary about the first U.S. visit The Beatles made. There is no commentary, no plot, just footage of The Beatles being themselves.
What interests me about this film are the contradictions: their prim and proper image onstage clashes with the behind the scenes footage of them smoking and drinking and fooling around. You can already feel the tension, as John is often absent, and Paul at one time quips, "No, that's the married man," referring to John.
You can start to feel their social commentaries take root, in stark contrast to the stodgy and slick Ed Sullivan (who doesn't let them talk on his show.)
If you like The Beatles, I would highly suggest renting this movie. It was $2 at Blockbuster, and is infinitely more entertaining than something trivial and lame you could rent for $6 that happens to be a new release.
What interests me about this film are the contradictions: their prim and proper image onstage clashes with the behind the scenes footage of them smoking and drinking and fooling around. You can already feel the tension, as John is often absent, and Paul at one time quips, "No, that's the married man," referring to John.
You can start to feel their social commentaries take root, in stark contrast to the stodgy and slick Ed Sullivan (who doesn't let them talk on his show.)
If you like The Beatles, I would highly suggest renting this movie. It was $2 at Blockbuster, and is infinitely more entertaining than something trivial and lame you could rent for $6 that happens to be a new release.
Wednesday, October 14
Rule #32
(small spoilers ahead)
I admit it, product placement in Zombieland got to me. I was at the store for a late night junk food run, and my thoughts were along the lines of:
"I want a cake type thing, but I don't want chocolate. Some sort of pastry, nah, more like a yellow cake. Maybe some sort of whipped cream. Do I want a bear claw? Nah. Not a pastry. Cake. Donut? Those Entenmann's look decent. I just don't really want a donut. Oooh. Chocolate fudge cake. But I don't want chocolate. Note those for later. Check the other side of this cabinet thingy. Hostess. Ho-Hos. Um no. Those cupcakes I always had when I was a kid. What? What are those? Twinkies? I want Twinkies."
So I say, "Hey kid, want some Twinkies?"
And he says, "No, I don't really want those, I want these," and he points to the Entenmann's fudge brownie bites.
"Let's get Twinkies."
"No! I really want those!" He's emphatically jabbing his finger at the overflowing chocolate bits of goodness on the package.
I relent. Might as well let the kid have what he wants. It's no big deal. "Okay, we can get those." I grab the brownies and stick them in the basket. He runs off, I pause, and I stick the Twinkies in the basket too.
Rule #32: gotta cherish the little things.
I admit it, product placement in Zombieland got to me. I was at the store for a late night junk food run, and my thoughts were along the lines of:
"I want a cake type thing, but I don't want chocolate. Some sort of pastry, nah, more like a yellow cake. Maybe some sort of whipped cream. Do I want a bear claw? Nah. Not a pastry. Cake. Donut? Those Entenmann's look decent. I just don't really want a donut. Oooh. Chocolate fudge cake. But I don't want chocolate. Note those for later. Check the other side of this cabinet thingy. Hostess. Ho-Hos. Um no. Those cupcakes I always had when I was a kid. What? What are those? Twinkies? I want Twinkies."
So I say, "Hey kid, want some Twinkies?"
And he says, "No, I don't really want those, I want these," and he points to the Entenmann's fudge brownie bites.
"Let's get Twinkies."
"No! I really want those!" He's emphatically jabbing his finger at the overflowing chocolate bits of goodness on the package.
I relent. Might as well let the kid have what he wants. It's no big deal. "Okay, we can get those." I grab the brownies and stick them in the basket. He runs off, I pause, and I stick the Twinkies in the basket too.
Rule #32: gotta cherish the little things.
Monday, October 12
Universal Zombie Themes
I saw Zombieland on Saturday, and what's so great about the movie was not witty one-liners (though those were funny) and the graphic violence (that was awesome too), instead, what I liked the most about the movie was the formation of a tribe under duress. This movie is more about disparate people working together and bonding as a clan than it is about a zombie apocalypse, much like how Lilo and Stitch is more about family than about aliens, and District 9 is about the self-actualization of the protagonist instead of a pure alien shoot-em-up.
Now I'm not saying that zombies and action aren't prevalent: they are. I wouldn't recommend this movie unless you can handle blood and guts and human cannibalism. Guns and weapons are prevalent, and are used liberally, and with much carnage.
At its core however (and at the center of all good cinema) are the new explorations of universal themes, of which realistic human interaction is a critical component. The motivations of these characters are plausible. The dialogue flows from scene to scene without being forced and telling. I empathize with them, and fear for their safety.
Unlike other movies that exist only to up the gore ante, without a characterization in sight, or a bounty of shallow motivations such as "I don't want to die" that are never fully explored, Zombieland understands that we are complex beasts, even when under attack from the undead.
Now I'm not saying that zombies and action aren't prevalent: they are. I wouldn't recommend this movie unless you can handle blood and guts and human cannibalism. Guns and weapons are prevalent, and are used liberally, and with much carnage.
At its core however (and at the center of all good cinema) are the new explorations of universal themes, of which realistic human interaction is a critical component. The motivations of these characters are plausible. The dialogue flows from scene to scene without being forced and telling. I empathize with them, and fear for their safety.
Unlike other movies that exist only to up the gore ante, without a characterization in sight, or a bounty of shallow motivations such as "I don't want to die" that are never fully explored, Zombieland understands that we are complex beasts, even when under attack from the undead.
Thursday, October 8
Genre Combinations
First of all, watch this:
Now, I realize the above clip is meant to be humorous, and it is, though I also got a separate and equally valid lesson in it, which is that certain genres do not do well when combined together. I can only name a few instances where combining aspects of fantasy, science fiction, cowboys, horror, you name it, has turned out well.
Whenever a Star Trek episode veers into a holodeck, the story rapidly declines into Suckville. Cowboy vampires, robots with swords, dragons in the present, these all sound neat in theory, but when put onto a screen or in a novel, you end up with campy crap.
I don't know why that is. Maybe the dissonance between discordant images shatters any suspension of disbelief the audience has built up over the years. Perhaps we can take bloodsucking fiends in one movie, and guys with lasers in another, but when you combine the two into vampire cyborgs, we step back and think, "Hey, that's lame," which is shorthand for when we deny the piece any plausibility.
So it works in the video above, but if anyone is thinking it would be great to make a science fiction musical theatre review with knights and dragons, please reconsider. The world will be a better place if you don't.
Now, I realize the above clip is meant to be humorous, and it is, though I also got a separate and equally valid lesson in it, which is that certain genres do not do well when combined together. I can only name a few instances where combining aspects of fantasy, science fiction, cowboys, horror, you name it, has turned out well.
Whenever a Star Trek episode veers into a holodeck, the story rapidly declines into Suckville. Cowboy vampires, robots with swords, dragons in the present, these all sound neat in theory, but when put onto a screen or in a novel, you end up with campy crap.
I don't know why that is. Maybe the dissonance between discordant images shatters any suspension of disbelief the audience has built up over the years. Perhaps we can take bloodsucking fiends in one movie, and guys with lasers in another, but when you combine the two into vampire cyborgs, we step back and think, "Hey, that's lame," which is shorthand for when we deny the piece any plausibility.
So it works in the video above, but if anyone is thinking it would be great to make a science fiction musical theatre review with knights and dragons, please reconsider. The world will be a better place if you don't.
Wednesday, October 7
The Illusion of Choice
Today's Penny Arcade led me to the Wikipedia article on Sophie's Choice, where I refreshed my memory of this powerful movie.
I had seen it many years ago, back when I was a robot. The plot had confused my wiring, but had not elicited anything unusually emotive. Now, reading the twists and turns of the movie, I can see Kevin Kline's madness, and Meryl Streep's torment as if I watched the movie yesterday. Somewhere in the recesses of my brain, these images have been stored, perhaps for the day when I might have needed them.
Now, I am nauseous. I look at my kids and I want to vomit. The revulsion leads to anger, a righteous fury where I would rip apart reality if anything remotely like what happened in the movie occurred to my kids. The image of the girl flailing for life as they drag her to the oven makes me want to shred this universe, my rage is ablaze that these stories can and have transpired. Something primal is loose, and I can barely contain the frenzy. I look on as my son takes a nap, and I want to cry for a fiction that exemplifies the worst in humanity.
If there is a God I am pissed at him because he allows these things to pass. An omnipotent being by definition is the emanation of everything, including evil. Indirect or not, he is ultimately responsible, and so I lay the blame at his feet.
Luckily for him, regardless of whether there is a God or not, it's also our own damn fault, mine included, which is why I cage the animal, divert it into nonviolent channels, so that I am not a part of the problem. It's not ideal, because I am imperfect. Unlike the so-called perfection of deities, that set us up with choices of limited resources between our brothers and cousins and parents, friends and enemies and strangers, so that we must choose between people, who lives and who dies through our own indirect actions and inactions.
We are all Sophie, and we must all choose.
I had seen it many years ago, back when I was a robot. The plot had confused my wiring, but had not elicited anything unusually emotive. Now, reading the twists and turns of the movie, I can see Kevin Kline's madness, and Meryl Streep's torment as if I watched the movie yesterday. Somewhere in the recesses of my brain, these images have been stored, perhaps for the day when I might have needed them.
Now, I am nauseous. I look at my kids and I want to vomit. The revulsion leads to anger, a righteous fury where I would rip apart reality if anything remotely like what happened in the movie occurred to my kids. The image of the girl flailing for life as they drag her to the oven makes me want to shred this universe, my rage is ablaze that these stories can and have transpired. Something primal is loose, and I can barely contain the frenzy. I look on as my son takes a nap, and I want to cry for a fiction that exemplifies the worst in humanity.
If there is a God I am pissed at him because he allows these things to pass. An omnipotent being by definition is the emanation of everything, including evil. Indirect or not, he is ultimately responsible, and so I lay the blame at his feet.
Luckily for him, regardless of whether there is a God or not, it's also our own damn fault, mine included, which is why I cage the animal, divert it into nonviolent channels, so that I am not a part of the problem. It's not ideal, because I am imperfect. Unlike the so-called perfection of deities, that set us up with choices of limited resources between our brothers and cousins and parents, friends and enemies and strangers, so that we must choose between people, who lives and who dies through our own indirect actions and inactions.
We are all Sophie, and we must all choose.
Wednesday, September 9
Rotten Tomatoes
Main site here.
This is my favorite movie site, because its aggregate nature means I have less busywork on my part, which I especially appreciate whenever the internet is concerned. Instead of navigating the breadth of reviewers out there, or just relying on whatever the newspaper or yahoo says, I get a democracy of sorts where every reviewer gets one vote.
There is even an electoral college, where arcane criteria divide Top Critics from other, less reputable sources. Roger Ebert is good. Some buffoon with a blog is bad. (Who, me?)
I also enjoy the debates (flame wars) when a particular critic bashes an otherwise popular movie. Take Armond White for example. This man has the ability to create controversy by hating every populous movie and liking every lambasted one. He gave rotten reviews to District 9, Harry Potter, and Up, which as of right now have 90%, 83%, and a 97% total scores. He gave fresh reviews to G.I. Joe, Transformers, and Dance Flick, which have 37%, 19%, and 19%. This man incites the forums to a riot, and can get away with it because he's respected (feared) within the film community.
I'm somewhat concerned that a site like this will push smaller, less cumulative avenues for movie reviews into the alley. Though as a consumer, I'm always looking for more bang for my buck. Why click on one movie reviewer at one site when I can get them all at the same time?
This is my favorite movie site, because its aggregate nature means I have less busywork on my part, which I especially appreciate whenever the internet is concerned. Instead of navigating the breadth of reviewers out there, or just relying on whatever the newspaper or yahoo says, I get a democracy of sorts where every reviewer gets one vote.
There is even an electoral college, where arcane criteria divide Top Critics from other, less reputable sources. Roger Ebert is good. Some buffoon with a blog is bad. (Who, me?)
I also enjoy the debates (flame wars) when a particular critic bashes an otherwise popular movie. Take Armond White for example. This man has the ability to create controversy by hating every populous movie and liking every lambasted one. He gave rotten reviews to District 9, Harry Potter, and Up, which as of right now have 90%, 83%, and a 97% total scores. He gave fresh reviews to G.I. Joe, Transformers, and Dance Flick, which have 37%, 19%, and 19%. This man incites the forums to a riot, and can get away with it because he's respected (feared) within the film community.
I'm somewhat concerned that a site like this will push smaller, less cumulative avenues for movie reviews into the alley. Though as a consumer, I'm always looking for more bang for my buck. Why click on one movie reviewer at one site when I can get them all at the same time?
Wednesday, July 22
Warcraft Movie
The official link here:
http://www.blizzard.com/us/press/090721.html
The movie will probably suck, as I have never seen a decent video game adaptation before.
However, that doesn't mean they will always suck. If it were to ever change, a Warcraft movie would be the ideal place for it to change. The lore is expansive, the characters are compelling, and Blizzard wouldn't push out a crappy movie just to make a buck. (Or at least that's my impression.)
Ever since I quit World of Warcraft though, I'm less inclined to be a fan of all things Blizzard, and I don't know how I feel about supporting a movie designed to drag more people into their MMO. Rationally, I realize that the movie and the video game are apples and oranges, but irrationally I feel that I would be akin to an alcoholic going to a drinking party.
This is also making me question whether I will want to purchase additional video games in the future, from Blizzard or at all. I spent four years of my life within the Warcraft universe, and I'm finished with that level of immersion. So any future game has to simultaneously be better and worse than WoW, which is an impossible feat.
I suppose I will have to take a "wait and see" stance here, however, this is not really appealing: my identity has been tied up with the "gamer" description for so long. To continue calling myself a gamer, while shunning the video game category, seems a little hypocritical on my part.
Maybe it's akin to having a drinking limit, and staying away from the hard drinks.
http://www.blizzard.com/us/press/090721.html
The movie will probably suck, as I have never seen a decent video game adaptation before.
However, that doesn't mean they will always suck. If it were to ever change, a Warcraft movie would be the ideal place for it to change. The lore is expansive, the characters are compelling, and Blizzard wouldn't push out a crappy movie just to make a buck. (Or at least that's my impression.)
Ever since I quit World of Warcraft though, I'm less inclined to be a fan of all things Blizzard, and I don't know how I feel about supporting a movie designed to drag more people into their MMO. Rationally, I realize that the movie and the video game are apples and oranges, but irrationally I feel that I would be akin to an alcoholic going to a drinking party.
This is also making me question whether I will want to purchase additional video games in the future, from Blizzard or at all. I spent four years of my life within the Warcraft universe, and I'm finished with that level of immersion. So any future game has to simultaneously be better and worse than WoW, which is an impossible feat.
I suppose I will have to take a "wait and see" stance here, however, this is not really appealing: my identity has been tied up with the "gamer" description for so long. To continue calling myself a gamer, while shunning the video game category, seems a little hypocritical on my part.
Maybe it's akin to having a drinking limit, and staying away from the hard drinks.
Tuesday, July 21
No Impact Man
Just saw the trailer for an independent eco-documentary called No Impact Man.
http://www.apple.com/trailers/independent/noimpactman/
What interests me about this movie is not the ideology behind what this guy is attempting, but how he has to convince his reluctant wife to go along with his plan. Marriage is all about compromise, and when one of the two people chooses life-changing radical path, the other person has a difficult decision to make: do they follow along?
The more extreme the decision, the harder the choice. It definitely seems like the guy in the trailer didn't fully think about the ramifications of this experiment beforehand, and the wife seems shell-shocked through most of the trailer.
An excerpt:
Other documentaries focus on The Man and Big Business as scapegoats for the status quo: No Impact Man focuses on ourselves, which are more difficult opponents to face.
http://www.apple.com/trailers/independent/noimpactman/
What interests me about this movie is not the ideology behind what this guy is attempting, but how he has to convince his reluctant wife to go along with his plan. Marriage is all about compromise, and when one of the two people chooses life-changing radical path, the other person has a difficult decision to make: do they follow along?
The more extreme the decision, the harder the choice. It definitely seems like the guy in the trailer didn't fully think about the ramifications of this experiment beforehand, and the wife seems shell-shocked through most of the trailer.
An excerpt:
Wife: "Your project."Those are fightin' words right there. If he can't convince her to wholeheartedly change, how can he realistically expect anyone else to?
Husband: "I thought it was our project."
Wife: "Oh yeah."
Other documentaries focus on The Man and Big Business as scapegoats for the status quo: No Impact Man focuses on ourselves, which are more difficult opponents to face.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)