Consider this a sequel to my blog defending remakes. The hype blog fits too; it all goes under a larger veil of "If you don't want to see a movie, then save your money, but stop complaining that it was made in the first place. Don't ruin it for the people still want to see it." That in itself is a subset of the larger category, "Quit whining, you whiny whiner." Actually, I think a lot of my blogs could pretty much be summed up as, "Don't make me come over there."
I agree that 90% of sequels are crap. But I'll have to direct you to Sturgeon's Law: 90% of everything is crap. Think movies were better in the old days? Come on, have you watched MST3K? There's a simple reason it seems like classic movies were better: only the 10% that were good are still remembered. Sequels are the same way; they pretty much have a 1 in 10 chance of being worth watching. Therefore, the logical solution isn't to make fewer sequels, it's to make many many more sequels, to increase the odds that some of them are good. You don't win the lottery by buying fewer tickets.
Most sequels suck for a reason. Original movies are often the result of a writer having an epiphany. Just like any other artist, he gets a grand vision that he needs to share with the world, then puts his blood and sweat into making it a reality. Meanwhile, sequels are often pushed by the marketing department, to cash in on a moneymaker. The plots are often contrived, because of the finality of the original movie's ending. Sometimes they cruelly unravel the "happily ever after" ending of the first movie. Large chunks of the plot might be the result of which actors were available. These are not the acts of a creative writer, these are the acts of someone trying desperately to squeeze out more story when there just isn't one to tell.
Even so, I like sequels. When a story is good, I just don't want it to end. Even if a sequel isn't very good, I like seeing my favorite characters again; it's like revisiting an old friend. In the super hero genre, the second movie is often the best one of the series, since they don't spend half the movie telling the hero's origin. Without sequels, we wouldn't have The Empire Strikes Back, Evil Dead 2, Aliens, Spider-Man 2, Terminator 2, and The Dark Knight.
But even if I hated every sequel ever filmed, I'd still respect their right to get made. This attitude of, "I don't want to see it, so it shouldn't exist" is what really drives me crazy. I like to think there's something for everyone. Therefore, if you were to somehow block a sequel from getting released, you could be eliminating what might have become someone else's favorite movie. All because you couldn't just ignore the film's existence. Hey, I'm not particularly fond of your favorite movie either, shall I shove it through my existence-cancelling wormhole? Let's see how you like it!
But I digress. My point is... um... quit whining, you whiny whiner! Now, bring on Titanic 2!
Saturday, October 15, 2011
Saturday, October 01, 2011
The "New" 52... I Was Promised A Reboot
I used to be an avid reader of DC comics. I read a few random issues of Superman as a kid, but I didn't really start reading until the Superman reboot in the 80s. It was a great time to get into the series. I got to see everyone's first appearance, both new villains and reinvented oldies. They also took the opportunity to tighten up Superman's abilities and explain them a bit better. The writing was better than it had ever been; the characters felt deeper. Sure, Superman was still the world's oldest boy scout, but he no longer felt so two-dimensional. More interaction with his parents made it clear why he was such a goody-goody.
Of course, comics are a gateway drug. At first I only read Superman, but then he would crossover with another hero, and I'd pick up a few issues of their comic to learn more about them. After a while I was buying more than a dozen titles, and I built up a large collection pretty quickly. But then I grew up. Which is not to say I think comics are childish, it's just that I had less disposable income as an adult, and I couldn't always fit comics into the budget. My buying habits dwindled for a while, and eventually I stopped altogether. When I finally started making more money, I considered picking it up again, but too much time had passed. There were so many new characters and plotlines, I didn't want to have to sort it all out. There just wasn't a good entry point. The final nail in the coffin was when I sold my collection.
When I first heard about the 2011 DC reboot, I was somewhat excited. From what I'd read, they were rebooting the entire universe from scratch. New costumes! New characters! No more continuity snarls! I can finally pick up an issue of Batman without worrying about when such-and-such a character was introduced or keeping track of which heroes know Batman's secret identity. Then I saw this picture:
...and loved it.Superman's costume looks so much better without the red briefs. I'm not so sure about the collar, but it's a small thing. From what I've read, he's wearing some sort of Kryptonian battle armor. It seems kind of weird that Superman would wear armor, when one of his most well-known powers is invulnerability. But the suit looks so good, I don't really care. It's not as pretty in some contexts, though. I hate the way it looks on the cover of Superman #1, where he almost looks like a robot. But it looks much better in the issue itself:
My only serious complaint is that several of the costumes look like they were designed by the same person. Aquaman, GL, and Supes all have the high collars. Supes and Bats have similar segment joints in their body armor. Since all these people got their costumes from different places, it's weird that they look so much alike. I'm very pleased with Wonder Woman. I've always hated her costume, it was too patriotic. Why did she always look like Miss USA when she came from Themyscira? But her new one is great, especially the pants. I know their target audience is teen boys, but I still don't think every single female hero has to be about showing as much skin as possible. Unfortunately, in her actual first issue she isn't wearing that costume; maybe she'll get it later.
I'm not really digging Clark Kent's new look... he kind of reminds me of Harry Potter. They seem to be emphasizing his meekness, and making him more of a social outcast. But it helps his secret identity, in my opinion, by making him look more like someone you would ignore.
What I would have done:
They didn't ask me (why does nobody ever ask me?), but I had my own ideas of what they should do with the reboot. I would have it split into two universes. Universe 1 would be the "Icons" or "Legends" line. Each series would start with the character's origin, bring them up to their iconic age, and then freeze them in time. Each hero would wear their most well-known costume. This universe would have plenty of crossovers, but not to the point where you'd have to read another hero's comic to understand what's going on. Most stories would be wrapped up in within the issue, and overall the Universe 1 would be more shallow than Universe 2. Very little would change over the years. U1 would also be more "all-ages" than U2, with simpler plots and more action than romance. In other words, when Timmy's grandmother stops by the store to pick him up an Aquaman comic, this is the comics line it should come from.
Universe 2 would be more interesting. U2 would be presented with the understanding that they'll probably reboot again in 30 years, and the stories would be presented in real time to some extent. So naturally they would start each hero as young as possible, so they wouldn't be geriatric by the time the next reboot came around. The first few issues of Superman would still show him as a child, but once the origin arc was over, he'd probably be about 18. Now, comic book time is a bit weird, and you can't really make each issue take place a month apart when a 3-issue story arc seems to all happen in the same day. However, they would still age relative to the year. So in 2011, Superman would be 18. In 2012, he would be 19, and so on. When they reboot again in 2041, Superman would be 48, though he might not look it thanks to his Kryptonian physiology. Unlike U1, the U2 comics would have all sorts of costume changes, cosmic events that change history, romances, weddings, pregnancies, deaths, rebirths, and all the other soap opera-esque elements we've come to tolerate.
What they really did:
Anyway, I'm rebooting the last two paragraphs because nothing like it came to pass. For starters, not everything was rebooted. Sure, DC relaunched with 52 titles that all say #1 on the cover, but most of them still rely on previous continuity. Worse yet, they're not even clear on how much of the previous continuity still happened. Also, not all the issues are happening at the same time. For example, Action Comics is telling the new Superman's origin, while Superman is covering his current exploits. I'm okay with that, since they might want to go back a few years to tell someone's origin story. But they're not really even doing that with most of them.
Superman's new origin doesn't start with Krypton exploding or baby Kal-El crashing to Earth; it starts with him as a young adult, when he first starts to make appearances as a super hero. Meanwhile, Batman starts out with sidekick Robin already being played by his son Damien Wayne. Batgirl has Barbara Gordon once again playing the title role, but events of The Killing Joke still happened (it says it happened 3 years ago, despite TKJ being released in 1988, but that's comic book time for you.). So Babs was still shot, but she got better, and her comic doesn't even tell you how she was healed. Supergirl is brand new again, making this the 437th version of the character.
It looked like a good time to start reading comics again, but after reading a few issues I was more confused than ever. I finally had to resort to Wikipedia to clear things up. As it turns out, this all follows the events of Flashpoint, the last universe-wide story arc of the pre-reboot continuity. In that story, several alternate realities merge, so that only certain parts of the DC universe are replaced with new versions of old characters, giving us the New 52. Kind of like the 2009 Star Trek movie, it's a rewriting of history that's still based on the previous canon.
So certain things just didn't happen... but it's not just that, other things must have happened instead. Okay, so nothing happened to Batman - he's so badass, even reboots can't touch him - but he has interacted with Superman in the previous continuity, which means now those interactions were either with the new version of Superman or didn't happen at all. Hasn't Superman saved Batman's life before? Would the new version of Superman have still been in the same place at the same time? I feel like they're skipping a big chunk of rewritten content I'd like to see.
In some ways this is more cruel than if they had just rebooted. For example, Clark Kent's human parents are dead in the new continuity. Now, if it had been a full reboot, then I could imagine that the Kents are still alive in that alternate universe of pre-reboot continuity. But this isn't an alternate universe, it's the same universe, but where certain events have been overwritten. The Kents didn't just die, the final years of their lives were actually erased. Every death provkes sad thoughts of "what might have been", but in the Kents' case, it's a matter of "what actually happened, then later unhappened."
I am enjoying some of what I'm reading, but I feel like I need a master guide to see how it all fits together. After all this hype about DC starting fresh, even people ranting about them throwing out 20+ years of continuity, it turns out to be just another timeline-affecting event like Crisis or Zero Hour. I'm not mad or anything, I'm just disappointed that I'm not getting the reboot I was expecting.
Step on clutch, shift to second...
One thing that's starting to bother me is the sexism. I'm pretty middle-of-the-road on most subjects; on any particular issue I waffle just enough to offend people on both sides. My traditionalist friends would probably call me a feminist, but my feminist friends probably think I'm sexist. Anyway, not to get too preachy, but you should really read this article on the sexism in the DC reboot. I think it's spot-on, and I would love it every member of the DC staff were required to read it. If you can't be bothered to read the whole thing, this Shortpacked comic strip will give you the gist.
It is now the 21st century, and more women are into geekdom than ever before. Hobbies that were considered exclusively male when I was a kid (video games, D&D, sci-fi) now have a much higher percentage of female enthusiasts. This would be the perfect time to show a little enlightenment, and increase their readership. Sure, they might lose a few guys who were only buying the comics to look at cleavage (assuming anyone's actually done this since the invention of the internet), but they stand to gain a lot of female readers. Instead, it's like the writers are intentionally trying to keep girls from picking up comics. The comics are starting to remind me of those car magazines where every picture includes a bikini-clad model posing on the car.
I'm not offended by near-nudity (or even full nudity). I enjoy eye candy as much as the next guy. Heck, I'd be perfectly happy if DC would do a spin-off universe that was completely adults-only. But this isn't about nixing eye-pleasing heroes, or removing sexuality from comics. You can have all that stuff and still make a comic worth reading. They just don't seem to be giving women any respect at all. I really don't understand why DC wants to ostracize a gender that comprises more than half the world's population. Of course, Marvel's not any better; they have their own controversies (usually surrounding Mary Jane).
All that aside, I've always been angry at the lack of respect given to my favorite female heroes. It doesn't help that my faves are Batgirl and Supergirl, both gender-swapped spin-offs of more popular characters. But I can't help it, I've always loved them. So it seriously hurts me the way they've been killed, crippled, rebooted, and reinvented so many times over the years. Superman and Batman have had the same secret identities (minus a few short vacations) for more than 70 years. Why can't their distaff counterparts keep stable identities? I could go off on a whole side-rant about the Women in Refrigerators trope, but it's been covered by plenty of bloggers better than I.
...and back into neutral...
Anyway, despite my own misconceptions about the reboot, and the off-putting sexism, I do like a lot of what I've read from the new reboot. The Aquaman comic seemed particularly self-aware, with all sorts of jokes about him being the last superhero you would call for most emergencies, and people making fun of his fish communication powers. I've never cared for Green Lantern, but the New Guardians (a team made up of one of each color lantern) looks interesting. Teen Titans and Superboy (which tie in together very closely) both had me wanting the next issue to arrive sooner. Detective Comics has a creepy cliffhanger involving the Joker, and you can guarantee I'll be checking out the conclusion. Supergirl was decent, if a little too similar to her last "first appearance" in 2004.
So basically, I'm not sure if I'm going to keep reading, or just leave it alone. I don't need the hassle of storing a large collection of comic books again, so I'm probably going to wait until some of the better storylines are collected and released as trade paperbacks. It's sad that they couldn't have handled things just a little bit better. They almost got me to start buying comics again.
Of course, comics are a gateway drug. At first I only read Superman, but then he would crossover with another hero, and I'd pick up a few issues of their comic to learn more about them. After a while I was buying more than a dozen titles, and I built up a large collection pretty quickly. But then I grew up. Which is not to say I think comics are childish, it's just that I had less disposable income as an adult, and I couldn't always fit comics into the budget. My buying habits dwindled for a while, and eventually I stopped altogether. When I finally started making more money, I considered picking it up again, but too much time had passed. There were so many new characters and plotlines, I didn't want to have to sort it all out. There just wasn't a good entry point. The final nail in the coffin was when I sold my collection.
When I first heard about the 2011 DC reboot, I was somewhat excited. From what I'd read, they were rebooting the entire universe from scratch. New costumes! New characters! No more continuity snarls! I can finally pick up an issue of Batman without worrying about when such-and-such a character was introduced or keeping track of which heroes know Batman's secret identity. Then I saw this picture:
...and loved it.Superman's costume looks so much better without the red briefs. I'm not so sure about the collar, but it's a small thing. From what I've read, he's wearing some sort of Kryptonian battle armor. It seems kind of weird that Superman would wear armor, when one of his most well-known powers is invulnerability. But the suit looks so good, I don't really care. It's not as pretty in some contexts, though. I hate the way it looks on the cover of Superman #1, where he almost looks like a robot. But it looks much better in the issue itself:
 |
| Left: Cover of Superman #1 Right: Inside the same issue |
My only serious complaint is that several of the costumes look like they were designed by the same person. Aquaman, GL, and Supes all have the high collars. Supes and Bats have similar segment joints in their body armor. Since all these people got their costumes from different places, it's weird that they look so much alike. I'm very pleased with Wonder Woman. I've always hated her costume, it was too patriotic. Why did she always look like Miss USA when she came from Themyscira? But her new one is great, especially the pants. I know their target audience is teen boys, but I still don't think every single female hero has to be about showing as much skin as possible. Unfortunately, in her actual first issue she isn't wearing that costume; maybe she'll get it later.
I'm not really digging Clark Kent's new look... he kind of reminds me of Harry Potter. They seem to be emphasizing his meekness, and making him more of a social outcast. But it helps his secret identity, in my opinion, by making him look more like someone you would ignore.
 |
| Left: Younger Clark from Action Comics #1; Right: Adult Clark from Superman #1 |
They didn't ask me (why does nobody ever ask me?), but I had my own ideas of what they should do with the reboot. I would have it split into two universes. Universe 1 would be the "Icons" or "Legends" line. Each series would start with the character's origin, bring them up to their iconic age, and then freeze them in time. Each hero would wear their most well-known costume. This universe would have plenty of crossovers, but not to the point where you'd have to read another hero's comic to understand what's going on. Most stories would be wrapped up in within the issue, and overall the Universe 1 would be more shallow than Universe 2. Very little would change over the years. U1 would also be more "all-ages" than U2, with simpler plots and more action than romance. In other words, when Timmy's grandmother stops by the store to pick him up an Aquaman comic, this is the comics line it should come from.
Universe 2 would be more interesting. U2 would be presented with the understanding that they'll probably reboot again in 30 years, and the stories would be presented in real time to some extent. So naturally they would start each hero as young as possible, so they wouldn't be geriatric by the time the next reboot came around. The first few issues of Superman would still show him as a child, but once the origin arc was over, he'd probably be about 18. Now, comic book time is a bit weird, and you can't really make each issue take place a month apart when a 3-issue story arc seems to all happen in the same day. However, they would still age relative to the year. So in 2011, Superman would be 18. In 2012, he would be 19, and so on. When they reboot again in 2041, Superman would be 48, though he might not look it thanks to his Kryptonian physiology. Unlike U1, the U2 comics would have all sorts of costume changes, cosmic events that change history, romances, weddings, pregnancies, deaths, rebirths, and all the other soap opera-esque elements we've come to tolerate.
What they really did:
Anyway, I'm rebooting the last two paragraphs because nothing like it came to pass. For starters, not everything was rebooted. Sure, DC relaunched with 52 titles that all say #1 on the cover, but most of them still rely on previous continuity. Worse yet, they're not even clear on how much of the previous continuity still happened. Also, not all the issues are happening at the same time. For example, Action Comics is telling the new Superman's origin, while Superman is covering his current exploits. I'm okay with that, since they might want to go back a few years to tell someone's origin story. But they're not really even doing that with most of them.
Superman's new origin doesn't start with Krypton exploding or baby Kal-El crashing to Earth; it starts with him as a young adult, when he first starts to make appearances as a super hero. Meanwhile, Batman starts out with sidekick Robin already being played by his son Damien Wayne. Batgirl has Barbara Gordon once again playing the title role, but events of The Killing Joke still happened (it says it happened 3 years ago, despite TKJ being released in 1988, but that's comic book time for you.). So Babs was still shot, but she got better, and her comic doesn't even tell you how she was healed. Supergirl is brand new again, making this the 437th version of the character.
It looked like a good time to start reading comics again, but after reading a few issues I was more confused than ever. I finally had to resort to Wikipedia to clear things up. As it turns out, this all follows the events of Flashpoint, the last universe-wide story arc of the pre-reboot continuity. In that story, several alternate realities merge, so that only certain parts of the DC universe are replaced with new versions of old characters, giving us the New 52. Kind of like the 2009 Star Trek movie, it's a rewriting of history that's still based on the previous canon.
So certain things just didn't happen... but it's not just that, other things must have happened instead. Okay, so nothing happened to Batman - he's so badass, even reboots can't touch him - but he has interacted with Superman in the previous continuity, which means now those interactions were either with the new version of Superman or didn't happen at all. Hasn't Superman saved Batman's life before? Would the new version of Superman have still been in the same place at the same time? I feel like they're skipping a big chunk of rewritten content I'd like to see.
In some ways this is more cruel than if they had just rebooted. For example, Clark Kent's human parents are dead in the new continuity. Now, if it had been a full reboot, then I could imagine that the Kents are still alive in that alternate universe of pre-reboot continuity. But this isn't an alternate universe, it's the same universe, but where certain events have been overwritten. The Kents didn't just die, the final years of their lives were actually erased. Every death provkes sad thoughts of "what might have been", but in the Kents' case, it's a matter of "what actually happened, then later unhappened."
I am enjoying some of what I'm reading, but I feel like I need a master guide to see how it all fits together. After all this hype about DC starting fresh, even people ranting about them throwing out 20+ years of continuity, it turns out to be just another timeline-affecting event like Crisis or Zero Hour. I'm not mad or anything, I'm just disappointed that I'm not getting the reboot I was expecting.
Step on clutch, shift to second...
One thing that's starting to bother me is the sexism. I'm pretty middle-of-the-road on most subjects; on any particular issue I waffle just enough to offend people on both sides. My traditionalist friends would probably call me a feminist, but my feminist friends probably think I'm sexist. Anyway, not to get too preachy, but you should really read this article on the sexism in the DC reboot. I think it's spot-on, and I would love it every member of the DC staff were required to read it. If you can't be bothered to read the whole thing, this Shortpacked comic strip will give you the gist.
It is now the 21st century, and more women are into geekdom than ever before. Hobbies that were considered exclusively male when I was a kid (video games, D&D, sci-fi) now have a much higher percentage of female enthusiasts. This would be the perfect time to show a little enlightenment, and increase their readership. Sure, they might lose a few guys who were only buying the comics to look at cleavage (assuming anyone's actually done this since the invention of the internet), but they stand to gain a lot of female readers. Instead, it's like the writers are intentionally trying to keep girls from picking up comics. The comics are starting to remind me of those car magazines where every picture includes a bikini-clad model posing on the car.
I'm not offended by near-nudity (or even full nudity). I enjoy eye candy as much as the next guy. Heck, I'd be perfectly happy if DC would do a spin-off universe that was completely adults-only. But this isn't about nixing eye-pleasing heroes, or removing sexuality from comics. You can have all that stuff and still make a comic worth reading. They just don't seem to be giving women any respect at all. I really don't understand why DC wants to ostracize a gender that comprises more than half the world's population. Of course, Marvel's not any better; they have their own controversies (usually surrounding Mary Jane).
All that aside, I've always been angry at the lack of respect given to my favorite female heroes. It doesn't help that my faves are Batgirl and Supergirl, both gender-swapped spin-offs of more popular characters. But I can't help it, I've always loved them. So it seriously hurts me the way they've been killed, crippled, rebooted, and reinvented so many times over the years. Superman and Batman have had the same secret identities (minus a few short vacations) for more than 70 years. Why can't their distaff counterparts keep stable identities? I could go off on a whole side-rant about the Women in Refrigerators trope, but it's been covered by plenty of bloggers better than I.
...and back into neutral...
Anyway, despite my own misconceptions about the reboot, and the off-putting sexism, I do like a lot of what I've read from the new reboot. The Aquaman comic seemed particularly self-aware, with all sorts of jokes about him being the last superhero you would call for most emergencies, and people making fun of his fish communication powers. I've never cared for Green Lantern, but the New Guardians (a team made up of one of each color lantern) looks interesting. Teen Titans and Superboy (which tie in together very closely) both had me wanting the next issue to arrive sooner. Detective Comics has a creepy cliffhanger involving the Joker, and you can guarantee I'll be checking out the conclusion. Supergirl was decent, if a little too similar to her last "first appearance" in 2004.
So basically, I'm not sure if I'm going to keep reading, or just leave it alone. I don't need the hassle of storing a large collection of comic books again, so I'm probably going to wait until some of the better storylines are collected and released as trade paperbacks. It's sad that they couldn't have handled things just a little bit better. They almost got me to start buying comics again.
Wednesday, September 28, 2011
Hate the Hype, Not The Hyped
Maybe it's because I don't watch a lot of TV these days, but I've been very fortunate about hype. I saw the trailer for Inception maybe twice before we saw the actual movie. I managed to watch the film and form my own opinion about it well before the hype train crashed through my living room.
The early reviews I read of Inception were great. Everyone called it creative, mind-blowing, intelligent, and so on. But as the days went on, I started seeing more and more reviews that called it over-hyped and not worthy of all the attention it was getting. In other words, these people listened to the hype and built the movie up to be the greatest film ever created, which of course it wasn't. I hate that kind of review, because it really doesn't review the movie itself; it only measures whether the movie lived up to the anticipation. These reviews also make the flawed assumption that everyone is going to experience the same amount of hype. That's obviously not going to be true, since different people watch different amounts of TV, and visit different web sites.
Back in 1994, a couple of friends of mine refused to see Forrest Gump because of the hype. They figured that since most people are idiots, anything that popular must suck. I agree with them about the idiots part, but even so, some things are popular simply because they deserve to be. Knowing these friends, they would have loved Forrest Gump if they could have seen it sans hype. But they never gave it a chance. That's how deep Hype Aversion runs for some people.
Heck, just a few weeks ago, a friend of mine complained about how much hype Titanic got when it came out. That was 14 years ago, are you not over it yet? Those wounds must run really deep. Were you bitten by a movie trailer when you were a child?
But when a movie is over-hyped, exactly who are you blaming? Are you sure it's the people who deserve it? In most cases, production and marketing are two different departments. You shouldn't blame the makers of Forrest Gump just because it was over-marketed. I doubt Robert Zemeckis himself was the one buying up ad time. Besides that, no matter how good a movie is, it's always the job of marketing to give a movie as much advertising as they think they can afford. So really you're just mad because the movie had a large advertising budget, which has nothing to do with how good the movie is.
Plus, a lot of the hype comes from the fans, not the studio. This is the information age. If a movie is good, people will talk about it. If you spend any time at all on the internet, you're going to hear about this movie 1000 times a day. I'm sorry, but that's the way it is. It's one thing to "punish" an overly-advertised movie by not buying a ticket, but I've actually heard people complain about hype that came from non-funded sources, such as news articles, blogs, and online forums. Seriously? You're complaining because a movie was talked about? Should they only make movies that aren't worth talking about?
Don't get me wrong, I don't actually enjoy seeing the same commercials over and over. I don't like seeing the best scenes of the movie 100 times before I actually get to watch the whole thing. I don't want to sift through 50 posts on the same subject just to find a new topic on a message board. But none of these are reasons to judge the film itself. I try not to pay much attention to commercials, and I already disregard 90% of what I read on the internet. If a movie looks good, I'll see it. While I'm sitting in the theater, I don't give a moment's thought to what the internet thought of it. My advice - if you truly can't enjoy a movie for its own merits, and have to compare everything to the buzz around it, then sell your TV, stay off the internet, and see movies either on opening weekend or 10 years later.
The early reviews I read of Inception were great. Everyone called it creative, mind-blowing, intelligent, and so on. But as the days went on, I started seeing more and more reviews that called it over-hyped and not worthy of all the attention it was getting. In other words, these people listened to the hype and built the movie up to be the greatest film ever created, which of course it wasn't. I hate that kind of review, because it really doesn't review the movie itself; it only measures whether the movie lived up to the anticipation. These reviews also make the flawed assumption that everyone is going to experience the same amount of hype. That's obviously not going to be true, since different people watch different amounts of TV, and visit different web sites.
Back in 1994, a couple of friends of mine refused to see Forrest Gump because of the hype. They figured that since most people are idiots, anything that popular must suck. I agree with them about the idiots part, but even so, some things are popular simply because they deserve to be. Knowing these friends, they would have loved Forrest Gump if they could have seen it sans hype. But they never gave it a chance. That's how deep Hype Aversion runs for some people.
Heck, just a few weeks ago, a friend of mine complained about how much hype Titanic got when it came out. That was 14 years ago, are you not over it yet? Those wounds must run really deep. Were you bitten by a movie trailer when you were a child?
But when a movie is over-hyped, exactly who are you blaming? Are you sure it's the people who deserve it? In most cases, production and marketing are two different departments. You shouldn't blame the makers of Forrest Gump just because it was over-marketed. I doubt Robert Zemeckis himself was the one buying up ad time. Besides that, no matter how good a movie is, it's always the job of marketing to give a movie as much advertising as they think they can afford. So really you're just mad because the movie had a large advertising budget, which has nothing to do with how good the movie is.
Plus, a lot of the hype comes from the fans, not the studio. This is the information age. If a movie is good, people will talk about it. If you spend any time at all on the internet, you're going to hear about this movie 1000 times a day. I'm sorry, but that's the way it is. It's one thing to "punish" an overly-advertised movie by not buying a ticket, but I've actually heard people complain about hype that came from non-funded sources, such as news articles, blogs, and online forums. Seriously? You're complaining because a movie was talked about? Should they only make movies that aren't worth talking about?
Don't get me wrong, I don't actually enjoy seeing the same commercials over and over. I don't like seeing the best scenes of the movie 100 times before I actually get to watch the whole thing. I don't want to sift through 50 posts on the same subject just to find a new topic on a message board. But none of these are reasons to judge the film itself. I try not to pay much attention to commercials, and I already disregard 90% of what I read on the internet. If a movie looks good, I'll see it. While I'm sitting in the theater, I don't give a moment's thought to what the internet thought of it. My advice - if you truly can't enjoy a movie for its own merits, and have to compare everything to the buzz around it, then sell your TV, stay off the internet, and see movies either on opening weekend or 10 years later.
Tuesday, June 21, 2011
Green Lantern
Green Lantern is not a particularly good movie. That said, I do think the critics are being a little hard on it. Everywhere I look, people are tearing it apart. One friend of a friend actually walked out. I'm sorry, but I just don't see where it was that bad. It's not brilliant, but what do you really want from a comic book movie? And this is a superhero who has powers from outer space, who uses a magic ring to conjure giant hands to punch people. Most people knew this going in. And yet, for some reason audiences were apparently expecting the gritty realism of The Dark Knight.
GL has never been one of my favorite super heroes. I don't like the "wish it and it will happen" nature of his powers. It's too much of a Deus Ex Machina - when you have a character that powerful, writers just don't have to work as hard. Heck, I don't even like the color green. So admittedly my expectations of the movie were low, and therefore easily met. So for what it's worth, I thought the movie was a lot of fun.
There's a few minor spoilers ahead, so watch out.
Some of the reviewers complained about the special effects, but I thought they were beautiful. There were a couple of examples of Special Effect Failure - one of the Guardians of Oa looked like he was rendered on a Playstation 2, and Hal's head seemed to change size now and then compared to his costume - but overall I loved the look of the film. I recognized a lot of the other Lanterns from the comics and cartoons, and I was very impressed at how realistically they were able to render characters that looked impossibly silly in the other media. I loved GL's outfit. I know it was the subject of a lot of internet backlash when it was first revealed, but I think the end product was great. I loved how it seemed so alive, with little light pulses constantly running through the lines of the outfit, almost reminiscent of Tron.
Ryan Reynolds was perfectly cast. Some people don't like how he played the same immature jerk he always plays, but I personally believe that's how Hal Jordan is meant to be played. In the Golden Age of comics, a "man without fear" meant some square-jawed boy scout with a one-dimensional personality. But in the more realistic modern age, fearlessness means you're too cocky and smug to be afraid when you should be.
I was particularly impressed with Sinestro. Everything about him, down to the most subtle facial expression, was spot-on with how I always pictured him. I am a little disappointed, however, that they still called him "Sinestro". Guardians, seriously, y'all are supposed to be some of the wisest creatures in the universe, but... his name is "Sinestro", you didn't see it coming? I was kind of hoping they would call him something else at first, and he would rename himself Sinestro once he got the yellow ring. Or at the very least, maybe they would give him a bit of backstory explaining how his name came to be.
With a power based on will, I was very afraid that the final confrontation would be some boring "Beam-O-War". You know what I mean, like in Harry Potter 4, when Harry and Voldemort have their wands locked. I was all set to see Hal shooting out a green ray, against an opponent's yellow ray, while both characters grunt a lot with the strain of their willpower, until Hal's finally wins out. I hate that kind of thing, as it's too easy to write, and not very satisfying on-screen. And then I heard that one of the villains was a cloud-like entity, and I was even more afraid. Having seen similar battles in Fantastic Four 2 and the first Hulk movie, I wasn't looking forward to such a vague battle. But the fights are actually pretty satisfying, with Hal using his powers in a lot of clever ways.
One of my favorite things in the movie was the lampshading of his so-called secret identity. Whenever Hal showed up with his little green mask on, I said to myself, "Oh, come on! There's know way they don't recognize him!" And I was right. Two people in the movie recognized him right off, not because he intentionally revealed his secret identity to them, but simply because they're not idiots.
I say this a lot, but I don't usually care whether a movie is bad or good, as long as it's not boring. Green Lantern did not bore me. But modern audiences must have higher standards than I do (and yet these are the same people keeping reality shows on the air). I think this goes back to my earlier blog about "All-Or-Nothing People": Since Green Lantern wasn't mind-blowingly excellent, then it sucked. People have lost the ability to rate a movie as "just okay". Unfortunately, "just okay" movies are some of my favorites.
Btw, I apologize for all the TVTropes links, but it's one of my favorite sites, and GL is a very tropey movie.
GL has never been one of my favorite super heroes. I don't like the "wish it and it will happen" nature of his powers. It's too much of a Deus Ex Machina - when you have a character that powerful, writers just don't have to work as hard. Heck, I don't even like the color green. So admittedly my expectations of the movie were low, and therefore easily met. So for what it's worth, I thought the movie was a lot of fun.
There's a few minor spoilers ahead, so watch out.
Some of the reviewers complained about the special effects, but I thought they were beautiful. There were a couple of examples of Special Effect Failure - one of the Guardians of Oa looked like he was rendered on a Playstation 2, and Hal's head seemed to change size now and then compared to his costume - but overall I loved the look of the film. I recognized a lot of the other Lanterns from the comics and cartoons, and I was very impressed at how realistically they were able to render characters that looked impossibly silly in the other media. I loved GL's outfit. I know it was the subject of a lot of internet backlash when it was first revealed, but I think the end product was great. I loved how it seemed so alive, with little light pulses constantly running through the lines of the outfit, almost reminiscent of Tron.
Ryan Reynolds was perfectly cast. Some people don't like how he played the same immature jerk he always plays, but I personally believe that's how Hal Jordan is meant to be played. In the Golden Age of comics, a "man without fear" meant some square-jawed boy scout with a one-dimensional personality. But in the more realistic modern age, fearlessness means you're too cocky and smug to be afraid when you should be.
I was particularly impressed with Sinestro. Everything about him, down to the most subtle facial expression, was spot-on with how I always pictured him. I am a little disappointed, however, that they still called him "Sinestro". Guardians, seriously, y'all are supposed to be some of the wisest creatures in the universe, but... his name is "Sinestro", you didn't see it coming? I was kind of hoping they would call him something else at first, and he would rename himself Sinestro once he got the yellow ring. Or at the very least, maybe they would give him a bit of backstory explaining how his name came to be.
With a power based on will, I was very afraid that the final confrontation would be some boring "Beam-O-War". You know what I mean, like in Harry Potter 4, when Harry and Voldemort have their wands locked. I was all set to see Hal shooting out a green ray, against an opponent's yellow ray, while both characters grunt a lot with the strain of their willpower, until Hal's finally wins out. I hate that kind of thing, as it's too easy to write, and not very satisfying on-screen. And then I heard that one of the villains was a cloud-like entity, and I was even more afraid. Having seen similar battles in Fantastic Four 2 and the first Hulk movie, I wasn't looking forward to such a vague battle. But the fights are actually pretty satisfying, with Hal using his powers in a lot of clever ways.
One of my favorite things in the movie was the lampshading of his so-called secret identity. Whenever Hal showed up with his little green mask on, I said to myself, "Oh, come on! There's know way they don't recognize him!" And I was right. Two people in the movie recognized him right off, not because he intentionally revealed his secret identity to them, but simply because they're not idiots.
I say this a lot, but I don't usually care whether a movie is bad or good, as long as it's not boring. Green Lantern did not bore me. But modern audiences must have higher standards than I do (and yet these are the same people keeping reality shows on the air). I think this goes back to my earlier blog about "All-Or-Nothing People": Since Green Lantern wasn't mind-blowingly excellent, then it sucked. People have lost the ability to rate a movie as "just okay". Unfortunately, "just okay" movies are some of my favorites.
Btw, I apologize for all the TVTropes links, but it's one of my favorite sites, and GL is a very tropey movie.
Friday, November 19, 2010
Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 1
Wow, that's a long title. Sure, they're all "Harry Potter and the x", but the "Part 1" somehow sends it over the edge.
Anyway, great movie. One of the best in the series. Goblet is still my favorite, but this might be runner-up.
I was skeptical about making it into a two-parter. The whole idea just screams, "Our cash cow is ending, how can we extend the franchise?" But I have to say, I really enjoyed the pacing. Unlike some of the others in the series, it didn't feel like they were rushing through, desperate to squeeze in all the events of the book. It actually makes me wish some of the others had been two-parters. The movie did lag at one point, but it was at a point where the book lagged too. (Or maybe I just don't like camping.)
They covered a lot more ground than I thought they would. There were several times when an important scene would happen, and I would think, "Annnnnd... credits." And then the movie would just keep going. In fact, it probably ended a full hour after the first time I thought it was going to end. But this does not mean it was an overly long movie. It is long, as are all the HP movies, but it's a good kind of long. Seriously, I saw the midnight showing, and it's usually hard for me to stay awake for those. But Deathly Hallows had my unwavering attention all the way through. And when it did finally end, it really was a perfect spot. It really left us wanting more. (...and needing to pee.)
I'm pretty sure I've already said this in previous Harry Potter blogs, but it's pointless to review this movie. If you've seen the other six, you know you're going to see this one. Who sees the first six movies in a series and then just stops? If you haven't seen the others, then you should definitely catch up before buying a ticket to Deathly Hallows or you're just going to be lost. And even if you don't care about being lost, the dramatic parts are more meaningful if you're already in love with the characters. But pointless review or not, I give it two thumbs up. It's a must-see... if you've seen the others.
Now, a bit more detail for those who've already seen it (or at least read it)...
*Spoiler Space*
*Spoiler Space*
Of course this movie was the most depressing of the bunch. Everything is coming to a climax, people dying left and right, and of course it ends at one of the darkest moments of the story. However, most of the deaths so far have been presented in a somewhat tame way. Harry barely sheds a tear for Hedwig, and Moody's death is just a snatch of dialogue. However, it ends with the very dramatic death of Dobby the house elf. I think this was a good way of showing parents that from this point on, it's going to get very dark, so you might want to think about pre-screening Part 2 before taking your littlest ones.
I wasn't as touched as I should have been by Dobby's death scene. I've never liked him; to me he's the Potterverse's version of Jar Jar Binks. I don't understand how Star Wars gets so much flak for CGI slapstick, while Dobby is loved for basically the same thing. So I wasn't sorry to see him go. To quote Chandler Bing, "Yes, it was very sad when the artist stopped drawing the deer." But my heart isn't made of stone. Heck, I cried a little in the first few minutes of the movie, when Hermione had to erase her parents' memories.
The only part of the movie I really didn't like was when Ron became a jerk for a while. It made more sense in the book, but it happened way too quickly in the movie and didn't have enough context. But that's a tiny little nitpick when the rest of the movie is so good.
Anyway, great movie. One of the best in the series. Goblet is still my favorite, but this might be runner-up.
I was skeptical about making it into a two-parter. The whole idea just screams, "Our cash cow is ending, how can we extend the franchise?" But I have to say, I really enjoyed the pacing. Unlike some of the others in the series, it didn't feel like they were rushing through, desperate to squeeze in all the events of the book. It actually makes me wish some of the others had been two-parters. The movie did lag at one point, but it was at a point where the book lagged too. (Or maybe I just don't like camping.)
They covered a lot more ground than I thought they would. There were several times when an important scene would happen, and I would think, "Annnnnd... credits." And then the movie would just keep going. In fact, it probably ended a full hour after the first time I thought it was going to end. But this does not mean it was an overly long movie. It is long, as are all the HP movies, but it's a good kind of long. Seriously, I saw the midnight showing, and it's usually hard for me to stay awake for those. But Deathly Hallows had my unwavering attention all the way through. And when it did finally end, it really was a perfect spot. It really left us wanting more. (...and needing to pee.)
I'm pretty sure I've already said this in previous Harry Potter blogs, but it's pointless to review this movie. If you've seen the other six, you know you're going to see this one. Who sees the first six movies in a series and then just stops? If you haven't seen the others, then you should definitely catch up before buying a ticket to Deathly Hallows or you're just going to be lost. And even if you don't care about being lost, the dramatic parts are more meaningful if you're already in love with the characters. But pointless review or not, I give it two thumbs up. It's a must-see... if you've seen the others.
Now, a bit more detail for those who've already seen it (or at least read it)...
*Spoiler Space*
*Spoiler Space*
Of course this movie was the most depressing of the bunch. Everything is coming to a climax, people dying left and right, and of course it ends at one of the darkest moments of the story. However, most of the deaths so far have been presented in a somewhat tame way. Harry barely sheds a tear for Hedwig, and Moody's death is just a snatch of dialogue. However, it ends with the very dramatic death of Dobby the house elf. I think this was a good way of showing parents that from this point on, it's going to get very dark, so you might want to think about pre-screening Part 2 before taking your littlest ones.
I wasn't as touched as I should have been by Dobby's death scene. I've never liked him; to me he's the Potterverse's version of Jar Jar Binks. I don't understand how Star Wars gets so much flak for CGI slapstick, while Dobby is loved for basically the same thing. So I wasn't sorry to see him go. To quote Chandler Bing, "Yes, it was very sad when the artist stopped drawing the deer." But my heart isn't made of stone. Heck, I cried a little in the first few minutes of the movie, when Hermione had to erase her parents' memories.
The only part of the movie I really didn't like was when Ron became a jerk for a while. It made more sense in the book, but it happened way too quickly in the movie and didn't have enough context. But that's a tiny little nitpick when the rest of the movie is so good.
Tuesday, September 14, 2010
Metroid: Other M
I thought I wasn't going to get to play the new Metroid for while, because I just couldn't fit it in the entertainment budget for a couple of months. But then my friend Chris bought it for me. He's also the one who gave me his old X-Box 360 a while back, when he upgraded to a newer model. I kept meaning to thank him for that publicly, but never got around to it, so I'll do it now:
Never mind that we're polar opposites on every issue from politics to religion; that has no bearing on true friendship. Chris has always been something of a conversational sparring partner, but I've found I need that. People should challenge their beliefs now and then, else they run the risk of believing silly things for no other reason than they've always believed it. Besides, I love to debate, and I often get along better with people with whom I can argue. So I hearby grant Chris the honorable title "Greatest Of All The Living Individuals Currently Known, Especially Republicans" (actually that's a little wordy, maybe I'll just use the acronym "G.O.A.T.L.I.C.K.E.R." for short).
So anyway, Metroid: Other M. I'm not very far into this game, so this is more of a first impression than a full review.
I thought that this game was supposed to be reminiscent of the classic Metroid games, but it turns out it's something entirely new. The controls are not like any of the previous games, 2D or 3D. While the game is mostly third person, you can walk in all directions: left, right, towards or away from the camera. So even though the background doesn't rotate in third person mode, it feels like you're playing something like Mario 64. Some sections of the map are left/right, like classic Metroid, and some sections are forward/back, so so you find yourself staring at Samus's back as she runs forward. The level map is an overhead view of the level, unlike the 3D Metroids (where the entire map was 3D and went in all directions), and unlike the 2D Metroids (where the map was a left/right cross section and made you wonder if any part of the pirate fortress was more than 20 feet wide).
You can switch to first-person view any time you want, but you can't move around while in first-person, so it's mainly used when you're trying to find something in the room. That's also the only way to fire missiles or use the grapple beam. This makes some of the boss fights very difficult, since you have to keep switching back and forth. You'll use third person for running around and dodging the creature's attacks, then you'll switch to first person to lock on to the creature's weak points and fire your missiles. And of course you'll end up going back and forth like that several times before the boss dies. It can be quite disorienting.
The previous Metroid games were built around exploration, but this one feels more like an action game. While the older games had you generally taking out one or two enemies at a time, this one has you constantly getting surrounded by enemy swarms, and you have to shoot in every direction to take them out quickly. Your shots auto-aim at the enemy closest to the direction you're facing/pressing, so you don't have to aim upwards or anything if an enemy is flying. You also have some physical attacks when enemies get too close, so for the first time you're not just shooting at enemies. The available moves depend on the enemy; for example, one particular enemy can only be killed buy jumping on it's back and shooting it in the back of the head (a move that doesn't work on other creatures).
Some fights are pretty difficult. However, save points are frequent (so far), and sometimes when you die it will start you at a nearby check point. Enemies don't drop anything, so you have to rely on save points to fully recharge. You also have the ability to recharge your missiles (and some of your health, if it's low) any time you're not currently in battle. And even when you hit 0 hit points, you don't always die right away. The game sometimes gives you a chance to run to safety and do the recharge move, while your hit points fluctuate between 0 and 1. So if you can just avoid the monster's death blow, you might be able to get a second wind.
Exploration-wise, it's a lot more "on rails" than any Metroid game I've played so far. It feels most like Metroid Fusion: There's a guy in the command center who unlocks doors for you, and sends you messages telling you to check out a certain area. Samus technically starts will all the attachments she had at the end of Super Metroid, but isn't allowed to use them until they're unlocked by the same command guy. So it looks like the only things to find are additional missiles and energy tanks. Hidden items are marked on the map, so you know when there's something to find, but you still have to figure out how to get to it. Sometimes this involves going into first-person mode and moving your cross-hairs over every single pixel on the screen until you find the secret place where you can lock on.
The movie scenes are very well-done, and it looks like Samus is going to keep having flashbacks throughout the game that tell more of her childhood. That might not interest everybody, but I'm looking forward to learning more about Samus Aran. I've read that the flashbacks upset some fans, because it doesn't follow the continuity previously established by the comics and manga. However, I never liked the origin stories I'd previously read (they involved Samus being raised by the same Chozo creatures that left item-holding statues all over Zebes... give me a break), so I look forward to seeing what the story is now. I hope this one lets you play as Zero Suit Samus at some point, like in Zero Mission.
It also has a couple of elements that remind me of the "Survival Horror" genre. Like you'll come across a corpse (sadly not graphic or bloody, but what did you expect from Nintendo), and Samus will say something like, "What could have done this?" Then a few minutes later some creepy thing might burst through the wall and attack you. Or you might catch a glimpse of a strange-looking enemy through a window or on a monitor before you get to face it later. I've found one "instant death" scene so far. I was climbing up an elevator shaft, and had to stop when I reached the bottom of the elevator. Then a tough monster showed up below me and started climbing up towards me. I found a place I could shoot that made the elevator fall, killing us both instantly. The checkpoint started me out right before that room. This time I found an alcove to stand in before I shot the elevator release thing, killing just the monster and letting me climb farther up the shaft.
I'll say this - Though I'm having great fun, so far it hasn't wowed me. Other than the Metroid name, there really isn't much to write home about. It's like when you buy a game based on a movie, and it turns out to be just another generic shooter or beat-em-up, but you still like it anyway because it's cool to control your favorite character. I mean, sure, the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles arcade game was pretty much just Final Fight with a makeover, but it was still more fun cracking heads with a turtle. If they ever got around to making a Metroid movie, this is probably what the tie-in game would be like.
It feels like they tried to take Other M in too many directions at once. The action doesn't control quite well enough to compete with true action games; in fact it feels like some of the early attempts to make a 3D Contra game for the PS1. The exploration aspect feels like they tacked it on (Manager: "It's a Metroid game! You have to give them something to find!") I kind of wish they'd played up the Survival Horror angle - I've always wanted a good "Resident Evil in space" game, like "Project Firestart" for the Commodore 64.
But please don't think I'm not enjoying it. I'd rather play the worst Metroid game than the best game of any other series, and this is not the worst Metroid game. It has its flaws, but overall my biggest gripe is that I just can't find the time to play it.
Chris, you're awesome.
Never mind that we're polar opposites on every issue from politics to religion; that has no bearing on true friendship. Chris has always been something of a conversational sparring partner, but I've found I need that. People should challenge their beliefs now and then, else they run the risk of believing silly things for no other reason than they've always believed it. Besides, I love to debate, and I often get along better with people with whom I can argue. So I hearby grant Chris the honorable title "Greatest Of All The Living Individuals Currently Known, Especially Republicans" (actually that's a little wordy, maybe I'll just use the acronym "G.O.A.T.L.I.C.K.E.R." for short).
So anyway, Metroid: Other M. I'm not very far into this game, so this is more of a first impression than a full review.
I thought that this game was supposed to be reminiscent of the classic Metroid games, but it turns out it's something entirely new. The controls are not like any of the previous games, 2D or 3D. While the game is mostly third person, you can walk in all directions: left, right, towards or away from the camera. So even though the background doesn't rotate in third person mode, it feels like you're playing something like Mario 64. Some sections of the map are left/right, like classic Metroid, and some sections are forward/back, so so you find yourself staring at Samus's back as she runs forward. The level map is an overhead view of the level, unlike the 3D Metroids (where the entire map was 3D and went in all directions), and unlike the 2D Metroids (where the map was a left/right cross section and made you wonder if any part of the pirate fortress was more than 20 feet wide).
You can switch to first-person view any time you want, but you can't move around while in first-person, so it's mainly used when you're trying to find something in the room. That's also the only way to fire missiles or use the grapple beam. This makes some of the boss fights very difficult, since you have to keep switching back and forth. You'll use third person for running around and dodging the creature's attacks, then you'll switch to first person to lock on to the creature's weak points and fire your missiles. And of course you'll end up going back and forth like that several times before the boss dies. It can be quite disorienting.
The previous Metroid games were built around exploration, but this one feels more like an action game. While the older games had you generally taking out one or two enemies at a time, this one has you constantly getting surrounded by enemy swarms, and you have to shoot in every direction to take them out quickly. Your shots auto-aim at the enemy closest to the direction you're facing/pressing, so you don't have to aim upwards or anything if an enemy is flying. You also have some physical attacks when enemies get too close, so for the first time you're not just shooting at enemies. The available moves depend on the enemy; for example, one particular enemy can only be killed buy jumping on it's back and shooting it in the back of the head (a move that doesn't work on other creatures).
Some fights are pretty difficult. However, save points are frequent (so far), and sometimes when you die it will start you at a nearby check point. Enemies don't drop anything, so you have to rely on save points to fully recharge. You also have the ability to recharge your missiles (and some of your health, if it's low) any time you're not currently in battle. And even when you hit 0 hit points, you don't always die right away. The game sometimes gives you a chance to run to safety and do the recharge move, while your hit points fluctuate between 0 and 1. So if you can just avoid the monster's death blow, you might be able to get a second wind.
Exploration-wise, it's a lot more "on rails" than any Metroid game I've played so far. It feels most like Metroid Fusion: There's a guy in the command center who unlocks doors for you, and sends you messages telling you to check out a certain area. Samus technically starts will all the attachments she had at the end of Super Metroid, but isn't allowed to use them until they're unlocked by the same command guy. So it looks like the only things to find are additional missiles and energy tanks. Hidden items are marked on the map, so you know when there's something to find, but you still have to figure out how to get to it. Sometimes this involves going into first-person mode and moving your cross-hairs over every single pixel on the screen until you find the secret place where you can lock on.
The movie scenes are very well-done, and it looks like Samus is going to keep having flashbacks throughout the game that tell more of her childhood. That might not interest everybody, but I'm looking forward to learning more about Samus Aran. I've read that the flashbacks upset some fans, because it doesn't follow the continuity previously established by the comics and manga. However, I never liked the origin stories I'd previously read (they involved Samus being raised by the same Chozo creatures that left item-holding statues all over Zebes... give me a break), so I look forward to seeing what the story is now. I hope this one lets you play as Zero Suit Samus at some point, like in Zero Mission.
It also has a couple of elements that remind me of the "Survival Horror" genre. Like you'll come across a corpse (sadly not graphic or bloody, but what did you expect from Nintendo), and Samus will say something like, "What could have done this?" Then a few minutes later some creepy thing might burst through the wall and attack you. Or you might catch a glimpse of a strange-looking enemy through a window or on a monitor before you get to face it later. I've found one "instant death" scene so far. I was climbing up an elevator shaft, and had to stop when I reached the bottom of the elevator. Then a tough monster showed up below me and started climbing up towards me. I found a place I could shoot that made the elevator fall, killing us both instantly. The checkpoint started me out right before that room. This time I found an alcove to stand in before I shot the elevator release thing, killing just the monster and letting me climb farther up the shaft.
I'll say this - Though I'm having great fun, so far it hasn't wowed me. Other than the Metroid name, there really isn't much to write home about. It's like when you buy a game based on a movie, and it turns out to be just another generic shooter or beat-em-up, but you still like it anyway because it's cool to control your favorite character. I mean, sure, the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles arcade game was pretty much just Final Fight with a makeover, but it was still more fun cracking heads with a turtle. If they ever got around to making a Metroid movie, this is probably what the tie-in game would be like.
It feels like they tried to take Other M in too many directions at once. The action doesn't control quite well enough to compete with true action games; in fact it feels like some of the early attempts to make a 3D Contra game for the PS1. The exploration aspect feels like they tacked it on (Manager: "It's a Metroid game! You have to give them something to find!") I kind of wish they'd played up the Survival Horror angle - I've always wanted a good "Resident Evil in space" game, like "Project Firestart" for the Commodore 64.
But please don't think I'm not enjoying it. I'd rather play the worst Metroid game than the best game of any other series, and this is not the worst Metroid game. It has its flaws, but overall my biggest gripe is that I just can't find the time to play it.
Monday, July 19, 2010
Predators and Inception
We saw an unlikely combination of movies this weekend, Predators and Inception. Both were great, though obviously very different.
Predators
Predators was awesome. Sullivan spent most of the second period in the penalty box, but he scored three goals in the third. Wait, wrong Predators.
Predators the movie. Right. Well, after the AvP movies, I really wasn't expecting much when I heard they were making a new Predator movie. I knew I'd see it eventually, but I could wait until DVD. Then it actually started getting good reviews, at least in my circle. I'm sure the professional movie critics are blasting it, but they never like the same kinds of films I like anyway.
This is arguably the first good movie of the Predator series. Now, before you start booing me, hear me out. I've always loved the Predator series. I love the creature design, the technology, and the general idea of these creatures that kill us for sport. Alien invasions shouldn't always be about world domination; there has to be other reasons a hostile being might visit a planet.
But, the individual movies themselves... eh, I'm just not as into them as I thought I was. I used to own 1 & 2 on VHS, but rarely watched them. I currently own both of them on DVD, but those discs have never even made it to the player. I just like the idea of them more than the movies themselves. The first Predator was a little too manly for my tastes. The sequel was okay, but very much a sequel for sequel's sake. You know, just more of the same for those who wanted the first movie to be longer. And of course, the AvP movies were fun, mindless action flicks for those who just wanting to see a little blood on a Friday night.
The new movie is similar to the original. They're in a jungle again, and you know the drill from the beginning - they're all going to get killed one by one until someone faces the final boss. However, this is the first one of the series to actually have some decent acting, and a good script.
I think my favorite part is how the movie begins. They could have started with one of the character's backstory on Earth, and shown what he was doing before he was abducted, and so on. But come on, this is a movie for Predator fans! We don't care about exposition, we want to be dropped right into the action.
Okay, make no mistake, it's not Shakespeare. But if I want a good story, I'll wait for the DVD. In the theaters, I want to go on a ride.
Inception
You know how sometimes you're watching a movie, and an entire scene turns out to have been just a dream? Then a bit later, the waking world turns out to be a dream as well? And then, it turns out that you weren't even at the theater today, and you just dreamed you were watching a movie? But after you wake up from that dream, you realize that your entire life has all been just a dream? Inception is kind of like that, except you're also drunk.
Lest you think I'm being negative, it's a rather pleasant sort of drunk, the kind where you lose your inhibitions just enough that you actually experience some sort of clarity (or think you do), and you actually sound smarter to those around you.
I really can't go into the plot without giving away too much, and I'd seriously recommend you avoid reading too many reviews before you see it. Heck, don't even read the review I linked to above. It's one of those plots where the less you know going in, the more you'll enjoy the show. Believe me, it's worth your money, and you don't need to know why first.
You will experience a bit of Fridge Logic when you get home, and the movie's technology is of the "it works because it works" variety. But you'll be too busy counting layers and keeping track of who's mind is doing what to really care about the science.
Go see it.
Predators
Predators was awesome. Sullivan spent most of the second period in the penalty box, but he scored three goals in the third. Wait, wrong Predators.
Predators the movie. Right. Well, after the AvP movies, I really wasn't expecting much when I heard they were making a new Predator movie. I knew I'd see it eventually, but I could wait until DVD. Then it actually started getting good reviews, at least in my circle. I'm sure the professional movie critics are blasting it, but they never like the same kinds of films I like anyway.
This is arguably the first good movie of the Predator series. Now, before you start booing me, hear me out. I've always loved the Predator series. I love the creature design, the technology, and the general idea of these creatures that kill us for sport. Alien invasions shouldn't always be about world domination; there has to be other reasons a hostile being might visit a planet.
But, the individual movies themselves... eh, I'm just not as into them as I thought I was. I used to own 1 & 2 on VHS, but rarely watched them. I currently own both of them on DVD, but those discs have never even made it to the player. I just like the idea of them more than the movies themselves. The first Predator was a little too manly for my tastes. The sequel was okay, but very much a sequel for sequel's sake. You know, just more of the same for those who wanted the first movie to be longer. And of course, the AvP movies were fun, mindless action flicks for those who just wanting to see a little blood on a Friday night.
The new movie is similar to the original. They're in a jungle again, and you know the drill from the beginning - they're all going to get killed one by one until someone faces the final boss. However, this is the first one of the series to actually have some decent acting, and a good script.
I think my favorite part is how the movie begins. They could have started with one of the character's backstory on Earth, and shown what he was doing before he was abducted, and so on. But come on, this is a movie for Predator fans! We don't care about exposition, we want to be dropped right into the action.
Okay, make no mistake, it's not Shakespeare. But if I want a good story, I'll wait for the DVD. In the theaters, I want to go on a ride.
Inception
You know how sometimes you're watching a movie, and an entire scene turns out to have been just a dream? Then a bit later, the waking world turns out to be a dream as well? And then, it turns out that you weren't even at the theater today, and you just dreamed you were watching a movie? But after you wake up from that dream, you realize that your entire life has all been just a dream? Inception is kind of like that, except you're also drunk.
Lest you think I'm being negative, it's a rather pleasant sort of drunk, the kind where you lose your inhibitions just enough that you actually experience some sort of clarity (or think you do), and you actually sound smarter to those around you.
I really can't go into the plot without giving away too much, and I'd seriously recommend you avoid reading too many reviews before you see it. Heck, don't even read the review I linked to above. It's one of those plots where the less you know going in, the more you'll enjoy the show. Believe me, it's worth your money, and you don't need to know why first.
You will experience a bit of Fridge Logic when you get home, and the movie's technology is of the "it works because it works" variety. But you'll be too busy counting layers and keeping track of who's mind is doing what to really care about the science.
Go see it.
Friday, July 09, 2010
Coming Soon: Parody Movie
The original Airplane! is one of the greatest films of all time. As a parody movie, they just don't get any funnier. Not only is the humor clever (if silly), but they cram in a whole lot of it. Almost every scene is worth at least a chuckle. Even if the actors are having a serious conversation, there's always something going on the the background, or at least a funny sign on the wall.
How brilliant is it? Consider this: A large number of viewers don't even realize that the movie is almost a scene-by-scene parody of a movie called "Zero Hour!". They know it's based on some old airplane-related movies, but a lot of Airplane! fans never saw the specific film it spends most of the time mocking.
Yes, Airplane! would be even funnier to someone who's seen Zero Hour!, and actually got all the references they were making. But the humor in Airplane! is so well-done, you don't even need to have seen the source material to get a laugh. How many of Scary Movie's jokes would have still been funny to those who hadn't seen Scream? Hell, how many of Scary Movie's jokes were as funny as Airplane!, even to those who had seen Scream?
After Airplane!, there were very few movies that captured the same magic. Airplane II: The Sequel was almost as perfect, but to be fair, it did use a lot of the same jokes as the original. Top Secret! was also quite good, and remains one of my favorite parody movies. I enjoyed the original Police Squad! TV series, but the Naked Gun movies weren't quite as funny to me. I also like the first Hot Shots! movie a great deal.
But as time goes on, these parody movies just get less and less funny. The "____ Movie" series has its moments, but overall I can't recommend a single one. Instead of gag-a-minute, they seem to go for gag-every-five-minutes (then stretch it out for another 8), and half of those gags are cheap toilet humor. I'm not offended; it's just not funny. (I might not find it funny because I'm not offended, if that makes sense.) That kind of humor is just too easy, and it does nothing for me.
And now we have Vampires Suck:
Argh! I'm not one of those whiny internet critics who cries when Hollywood makes a movie they don't like. I don't mind the existence of bad movies, because usually I can just skip them. But this one annoys me because I want to see it! Granted, there's no shortage of Twilight parodies already out there, and this doesn't even look like one of the better ones. But I like the Twilight series just enough to want to see it parodied as often as possible. I just wish it would be clever! But it won't. But I'll see it anyway. Ugh.
EDIT: Here's a pretty good Cracked article on the subject of bad parodies.
How brilliant is it? Consider this: A large number of viewers don't even realize that the movie is almost a scene-by-scene parody of a movie called "Zero Hour!". They know it's based on some old airplane-related movies, but a lot of Airplane! fans never saw the specific film it spends most of the time mocking.
Yes, Airplane! would be even funnier to someone who's seen Zero Hour!, and actually got all the references they were making. But the humor in Airplane! is so well-done, you don't even need to have seen the source material to get a laugh. How many of Scary Movie's jokes would have still been funny to those who hadn't seen Scream? Hell, how many of Scary Movie's jokes were as funny as Airplane!, even to those who had seen Scream?
After Airplane!, there were very few movies that captured the same magic. Airplane II: The Sequel was almost as perfect, but to be fair, it did use a lot of the same jokes as the original. Top Secret! was also quite good, and remains one of my favorite parody movies. I enjoyed the original Police Squad! TV series, but the Naked Gun movies weren't quite as funny to me. I also like the first Hot Shots! movie a great deal.
But as time goes on, these parody movies just get less and less funny. The "____ Movie" series has its moments, but overall I can't recommend a single one. Instead of gag-a-minute, they seem to go for gag-every-five-minutes (then stretch it out for another 8), and half of those gags are cheap toilet humor. I'm not offended; it's just not funny. (I might not find it funny because I'm not offended, if that makes sense.) That kind of humor is just too easy, and it does nothing for me.
And now we have Vampires Suck:
Argh! I'm not one of those whiny internet critics who cries when Hollywood makes a movie they don't like. I don't mind the existence of bad movies, because usually I can just skip them. But this one annoys me because I want to see it! Granted, there's no shortage of Twilight parodies already out there, and this doesn't even look like one of the better ones. But I like the Twilight series just enough to want to see it parodied as often as possible. I just wish it would be clever! But it won't. But I'll see it anyway. Ugh.
EDIT: Here's a pretty good Cracked article on the subject of bad parodies.
Wednesday, July 07, 2010
The Twilight Saga: Eclipse
I'll skip the usual "abusive relationship" rant. You know, Edward's too controlling, Bella co-dependent, it's anti-feminist, yada yada yada. All the stuff that's a little more forgivable the way it's explained in the books, but even then isn't very healthy. Meh... I agree with a lot of it, but it's all been said, all over the internet. Let's just talk about the movie itself.
A full review would be useless at this point in the series. If you liked the first one enough to see the second one, then you're probably committed to the series. This property is such a "love it or hate it" sort of thing, that my opinion isn't going to persuade anyone.
That said, I didn't really care for it. It had some decent action scenes, and a few funny moments here and there. But... where do I begin? The acting was terrible, most of the dialogue was bland, the historical flashbacks weren't convincing, there were bits of my arch-nemesis the shaky-cam, and it was still 90% shallow angst and hard-to-swallow romance. Oh, and lots of posing: "Hey, let's all stand perfectly still and stare into the woods, it'll look great on a thermos later."
Also, the lighting was bad. Actually, no, the lighting was too good. There were a couple of scenes where it didn't look even remotely overcast, yet Edward was outside in front of muggles, sans sparkle.
I'm not sold on they way they showed vampires getting smashed during the fight scenes, like they were made out of marble. I know the books always described the vamps as being hard like stone, but on film it looked sort of silly. I realize that the good guys were hitting them incredibly hard to make them shatter like that, and it's supposed to make them look even tougher, but it actually made them look kind of fragile. Like if Edward were to fall down the stairs, he would break into a million sparkly pieces.
Anyway, I'm not a Twihard, and I'm not the movie's target demographic. So it's no surprise that I didn't really like it. The action scenes were nice, in fact they were my favorite scenes in the series so far. But everything else was just boring.
However...
To be honest, Twilight-haters are actually annoying me more than the Twilight Saga at the moment. Seriously, don't these people get tired of saying the same things over and over? Not to mention all the critics who obviously only watched the trailers, and the nit-pickers who must have missed large amounts of dialogue. "I hate how Edward is so rude to Bella when he first meets her!" Well, if you'd read the books or at least listened to the dialogue, you'd know why.
I read all four books, telling myself the entire time that I was only reading it so that I'd have ammo to insult it later. But to be honest, I really didn't have a bad time. It's not great, and I don't see how it got to be so popular, but it's not the unreadable rubbish people think it is. And I still respect the opinion of those who love it.
"Oh no! This series that I don't plan to watch or read isn't very good! Since not being into something popular makes me feel stupid, the only way I can cope is to convince other people not to like it! Waah!" Seriously dudes, you need to accept that different people like different things, and that's okay. Repeat after me: "I don't particularly care for (insert name of movie, tv show, sport, video game system, web browser, font, religion, or sexual position), but that doesn't mean it sucks. It just means that it's not for me. I'll let other people enjoy it if they want to."
So... yeah, I think I'll alienate both sides today.
I guess I should be glad that Hollywood finally gave these uncreative, whiny, pathetic, brain-dead losers something to cry about besides the Star Wars prequels. I ranted earlier about people who complain that remakes are ruining their childhood memories. (My opinion: If your memories are that easy to damage, you might want to see a neurologist. Or just don't watch the remakes.) Well, the same idiots are worried that Meyer's sparkly vampires are somehow going to erase all the previous vampire stories from their minds, or that the popularity of this series means that people will stop making non-sparkly vampire movies. Short answer: Quit worrying and grow up.
But most importantly, there are a lot of very intelligent people who happen to enjoy the Twilight series. They don't take it seriously, and they have noticed the same problems with the series that you like to moan about. But for whatever reason, they still enjoy the story. You probably know more of these people than you think, because they're afraid to admit it. You'll get less ribbing coming out of the closet as a transvestite furry LARPer than as an adult Twilight fan. So keep that in mind: when you go off on Twilight, you are insulting your friends. Keep it up, and you won't have any. (And knowing is half the battle.)
As long as we're on the subject of Twilight, I would like to give a free plug for Rifftrax, the best way to enjoy bad movies (and even some good ones). For those who don't know: Do you remember Mystery Science Theater 3000, the show where a guy and two robots made fun of bad sci-fi movies? Well, those same guys are at it again, except now they're riffing mainstream movies.
Since they can't get the rights for these movies as easily, you just buy the audio track with their comments. Simply play the Rifftrax MP3 while watching the DVD, and follow their instructions to sync them.
Well, one of the best Rifftrax is the one for Twilight. You can watch a sample here. I've watched that Rifftrax several times, and it never gets old. They also have one for New Moon, and I'm sure they'll have one for Eclipse the moment it hits DVD.
A full review would be useless at this point in the series. If you liked the first one enough to see the second one, then you're probably committed to the series. This property is such a "love it or hate it" sort of thing, that my opinion isn't going to persuade anyone.
That said, I didn't really care for it. It had some decent action scenes, and a few funny moments here and there. But... where do I begin? The acting was terrible, most of the dialogue was bland, the historical flashbacks weren't convincing, there were bits of my arch-nemesis the shaky-cam, and it was still 90% shallow angst and hard-to-swallow romance. Oh, and lots of posing: "Hey, let's all stand perfectly still and stare into the woods, it'll look great on a thermos later."
Also, the lighting was bad. Actually, no, the lighting was too good. There were a couple of scenes where it didn't look even remotely overcast, yet Edward was outside in front of muggles, sans sparkle.
I'm not sold on they way they showed vampires getting smashed during the fight scenes, like they were made out of marble. I know the books always described the vamps as being hard like stone, but on film it looked sort of silly. I realize that the good guys were hitting them incredibly hard to make them shatter like that, and it's supposed to make them look even tougher, but it actually made them look kind of fragile. Like if Edward were to fall down the stairs, he would break into a million sparkly pieces.
Anyway, I'm not a Twihard, and I'm not the movie's target demographic. So it's no surprise that I didn't really like it. The action scenes were nice, in fact they were my favorite scenes in the series so far. But everything else was just boring.
However...
To be honest, Twilight-haters are actually annoying me more than the Twilight Saga at the moment. Seriously, don't these people get tired of saying the same things over and over? Not to mention all the critics who obviously only watched the trailers, and the nit-pickers who must have missed large amounts of dialogue. "I hate how Edward is so rude to Bella when he first meets her!" Well, if you'd read the books or at least listened to the dialogue, you'd know why.
I read all four books, telling myself the entire time that I was only reading it so that I'd have ammo to insult it later. But to be honest, I really didn't have a bad time. It's not great, and I don't see how it got to be so popular, but it's not the unreadable rubbish people think it is. And I still respect the opinion of those who love it.
"Oh no! This series that I don't plan to watch or read isn't very good! Since not being into something popular makes me feel stupid, the only way I can cope is to convince other people not to like it! Waah!" Seriously dudes, you need to accept that different people like different things, and that's okay. Repeat after me: "I don't particularly care for (insert name of movie, tv show, sport, video game system, web browser, font, religion, or sexual position), but that doesn't mean it sucks. It just means that it's not for me. I'll let other people enjoy it if they want to."
So... yeah, I think I'll alienate both sides today.
I guess I should be glad that Hollywood finally gave these uncreative, whiny, pathetic, brain-dead losers something to cry about besides the Star Wars prequels. I ranted earlier about people who complain that remakes are ruining their childhood memories. (My opinion: If your memories are that easy to damage, you might want to see a neurologist. Or just don't watch the remakes.) Well, the same idiots are worried that Meyer's sparkly vampires are somehow going to erase all the previous vampire stories from their minds, or that the popularity of this series means that people will stop making non-sparkly vampire movies. Short answer: Quit worrying and grow up.
But most importantly, there are a lot of very intelligent people who happen to enjoy the Twilight series. They don't take it seriously, and they have noticed the same problems with the series that you like to moan about. But for whatever reason, they still enjoy the story. You probably know more of these people than you think, because they're afraid to admit it. You'll get less ribbing coming out of the closet as a transvestite furry LARPer than as an adult Twilight fan. So keep that in mind: when you go off on Twilight, you are insulting your friends. Keep it up, and you won't have any. (And knowing is half the battle.)
As long as we're on the subject of Twilight, I would like to give a free plug for Rifftrax, the best way to enjoy bad movies (and even some good ones). For those who don't know: Do you remember Mystery Science Theater 3000, the show where a guy and two robots made fun of bad sci-fi movies? Well, those same guys are at it again, except now they're riffing mainstream movies.
Since they can't get the rights for these movies as easily, you just buy the audio track with their comments. Simply play the Rifftrax MP3 while watching the DVD, and follow their instructions to sync them.
Well, one of the best Rifftrax is the one for Twilight. You can watch a sample here. I've watched that Rifftrax several times, and it never gets old. They also have one for New Moon, and I'm sure they'll have one for Eclipse the moment it hits DVD.
Remakes
I hear this a lot: "What's with all the remakes? Has Hollywood run out of ideas? They're raping my childhood memories!"
I really don't understand why people get so upset about remakes. I guarantee you, they're not going to stop selling the original movie just because a remake comes out. Remakes are not replacements.
Have you ever seen the same play twice, but performed by a different group at a different theater? Did you demand your money back because it wasn't the "real" cast? When you saw Romeo & Juliet, did you demand they resurrect the original actors who performed it in Shakespeare's time?
Personally, I love seeing how different directors & casts handle the same story. I've seen a couple of different productions of "Little Shop of Horrors", and I loved seeing how each one handled the complicated props, especially since they had vastly different budgets. With movies, I love comparing and contrasting the various versions, looking at what choices were made, what they decided to leave out (and theorizing as to why), whether the improved special effects adds to or detracts from the experience, and so on. Yes, some versions will be better than others. I fail to see how that ruins your childhood memories. In my experience, it enhances them. Sure, the Anne Heche version of Psycho was sort of dull and pointless... but it didn't overwrite my memory of the original, and makes me appreciate the old one that much more.
I hear the argument, "that's time they could have spent making an original movie." But do you really think the guy directing the "Fall Guy" movie is doing so because he turned down the next Godfather? I see no evidence that these guys would be cranking out masterpieces if only they weren't wasting their time on remakes. Besides, how often do you see original stories anyway? How many movies have you seen that were really just "Die Hard" but on a boat/plane/space/cave/cabin? Aren't remakes at least more honest?
So I say, bring on the remakes. I want to see a comedy version of Ben Hur. I want to see the cast of Seinfeld perform My Fair Lady. I want to see Star Wars performed in the nude. I want to see a sock puppet version of The Birds. I want to see Jack Black play Atticus Finch. I want to see a version of King Kong performed by chimps, with the only human playing the title role. If I don't like the look of one, I'll skip it, but I won't cry that it got made.
(Okay, I'll admit my examples were tongue-in-cheek. I wouldn't actually pay to see any of those, except possibly the Star Wars one, if only to see how they handle the "disguise themselves as Stormtroopers" scene.)
And I would love it if Hollywood would do the following project: Write one script (one with a lot of room for interpretation), then give it to 10 different directors/casts, and see how the different versions turn out.
I really don't understand why people get so upset about remakes. I guarantee you, they're not going to stop selling the original movie just because a remake comes out. Remakes are not replacements.
Have you ever seen the same play twice, but performed by a different group at a different theater? Did you demand your money back because it wasn't the "real" cast? When you saw Romeo & Juliet, did you demand they resurrect the original actors who performed it in Shakespeare's time?
Personally, I love seeing how different directors & casts handle the same story. I've seen a couple of different productions of "Little Shop of Horrors", and I loved seeing how each one handled the complicated props, especially since they had vastly different budgets. With movies, I love comparing and contrasting the various versions, looking at what choices were made, what they decided to leave out (and theorizing as to why), whether the improved special effects adds to or detracts from the experience, and so on. Yes, some versions will be better than others. I fail to see how that ruins your childhood memories. In my experience, it enhances them. Sure, the Anne Heche version of Psycho was sort of dull and pointless... but it didn't overwrite my memory of the original, and makes me appreciate the old one that much more.
I hear the argument, "that's time they could have spent making an original movie." But do you really think the guy directing the "Fall Guy" movie is doing so because he turned down the next Godfather? I see no evidence that these guys would be cranking out masterpieces if only they weren't wasting their time on remakes. Besides, how often do you see original stories anyway? How many movies have you seen that were really just "Die Hard" but on a boat/plane/space/cave/cabin? Aren't remakes at least more honest?
So I say, bring on the remakes. I want to see a comedy version of Ben Hur. I want to see the cast of Seinfeld perform My Fair Lady. I want to see Star Wars performed in the nude. I want to see a sock puppet version of The Birds. I want to see Jack Black play Atticus Finch. I want to see a version of King Kong performed by chimps, with the only human playing the title role. If I don't like the look of one, I'll skip it, but I won't cry that it got made.
(Okay, I'll admit my examples were tongue-in-cheek. I wouldn't actually pay to see any of those, except possibly the Star Wars one, if only to see how they handle the "disguise themselves as Stormtroopers" scene.)
And I would love it if Hollywood would do the following project: Write one script (one with a lot of room for interpretation), then give it to 10 different directors/casts, and see how the different versions turn out.
Saturday, May 01, 2010
My D&D Blog
I'm moving most of my D&D-related entries over to my Campaign Journals blog. Partly because I know it bores most of my regular readers (*snicker* "regular readers" heh), and partly just so I can have everything in one place.
Sunday, July 05, 2009
Tranformers: Revenge of the Fallen
I'm a bit of a snob.
Back in school, I considered myself superior to my classmates, because I thought my tastes were more refined. Okay, granted, my favorite movie was "Aliens", which is by no means an art film. But the fact that I could enjoy plays, musicals, and explosion-free movies, made me think that I was better than other people. I often thought of myself as Diane Chambers from Cheers, the only cultured person in a room full of lowbrow drunks. It wasn't until years later that I realized just how annoying that Diane character was, and that "pretentious" is a bad thing.
But everyone's tastes change when they get older. Some of my formerly-lowbrow friends finally got girlfriends/wives, and amazingly started to enjoy romantic comedies. Or if not enjoy, at least tolerate. Rom-coms are not exactly Shakespeare, but at least it's a step up from only watching action films. Well, a step sideways... either way, it's a broadening of horizons.
Meanwhile my own tastes may be heading in the opposite direction. I still love plays, musicals, and explosion-free movies, but I don't need to pay big bucks for them. I'm happy watching my rom-coms on DVD. But on the big screen, I want explosions. That's the only reason to pay the increasingly outrageous theater prices. I want big special effects, giant monsters, space battles, and plots that defy logic. I want the director to build a gigantic technocratic post-apocolyptic city using nothing but CGI and Blade Runner references... then I want him to destroy it with a cybernetically-enhanced radioactively-mutated Cloverfield-esque psycho-monster.
I'm not sitting there to think. I do enough of that at home. When I pop in a DVD, I have a pause button I can freely use when I want to consider the ramifications of what was just said. If I want a deeper plot, I'll read a book. But in the theater I want to see things too big to fit on a home television. In that respect, Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen is pure win.
I went in to this movie with the knowledge that everyone was blasting it to pieces. Roger Ebert called it "a horrible experience of unbearable length." Well, of course Ebert only likes classy films, right? Except of course he liked the first one. A reviewer from the Bilerico Project (a LGBTQ group) walked out halfway, calling it "Homophobia in Disguise."
Maybe the bad press helped. Maybe it lowered my standards so I didn't expect too much from the movie. I do remember telling KJ a few times going in, "Now this is probably going to suck, so just enjoy the eye candy." But I think I would have liked this anyway.
Transformers: RotF is a fun movie. Now that I've seen it, I agree with everything bad that was said about it. It is too long. It does have touches of racism, sexism, and homophobia. It has a terrible script and some horrible acting. It does not deserve to win any awards.
Why can't more reviewers learn the difference between good and entertaining? I mean, The Exorcist is a wonderful movie. It's wonderfully written, perfectly acted, well-directed, the whole package. It deserves every accolade it's ever received. I'm glad I saw it... in a way, I feel like I'm a better person for having seen it. However, I would rather shave my head with a cheese grater than sit through it again.
I like a lot of good movies, and I like a lot of bad movies. But the most important factor to me is the entertainment factor. The worst thing a movie can do is bore me. A bad script is still interesting if it's really bad. Bad acting can be laughed at. But a boring movie can not be saved, even if it's a masterpiece in every other way.
Anyway, T:RotF is pure Michael Bay, a statement which will immediately either draw you in or send you fleeing. It's filled with slow motion explosions, rock-em sock-em robots, and lots of eye candy. A good portion of it feels more like a tech demo than a movie. It keeps your eyes busy; even when Transformers are just standing around talking, the camera keeps rotating around them just to show off the SFX.
Like the first film, the few minutes of human interactions involve embarrassing parental moments and crude humor, like replacing the first movie's masturbation jokes with humping dogs. They kept a lot of the T1's human cast, even in places where it doesn't make a lot of sense. I mean, does everything happen to the same set of soldiers? Are these same soldiers always the closest ones to whatever is happening in the world? And bringing back John Turturro's character was both contrived and pointless, considering that he was one of the things dragging down the first movie.
Now, the offensive stuff... If you recall, the first Transformers had a few silly stereotypes in there, but spread out through the movie's many characters. Most notable was the over-the-top black kid whose dialogue felt like it was written by a staff of white guys trying to talk street. But other elements were there; the foreign phone operator, the Jive-talking Autobot Jazz, etc. One or two references don't bother me. If you have five African-Americans in a movie, and one of them talks like the "Jive Dudes" from Airplane!, it just means that the character happens to talk like that. But when all non-white characters in a movie perpetuate stereotypes, it seems like the director is a racist.
T2 manages to get it out of its system by wrapping up most of the movie's potential offensive elements into a pair of characters. Mudflap and Skids, collectively known as the Twins. They are silly/stupid gagbots, the kind of comic relief I always hate. Why so many writers think every script needs a Jar Jar, I'll never know. The writers do this to make it more entertaining to little kids, but even when I was a little kid I hated all the Orkos and Snarfs and T-Bobs in my favorite cartoons. But the Twins aren't just stupid klutzes like Jar Jar, they also go out of their way to be offensive in as many ways as possible.
But that's okay, because the movie establishes pretty quickly that the characters are stupid jerks. I don't mind if a stupid jerk is also shown to be a homophobe (for example), because that's like the director saying, "See? Homophobes are idiots." Not to apologize for these characters, but I do think the Bilerico Project article took it too hard. The reviewer complains about the use of "pussy" as a pejorative (sexist), and one of the twins taunting a guy with "you gonna go cry to your boyfriend?" (homophobic).
Both are things I do wish people wouldn't say. Accusing someone of being gay is no longer a relevant insult, because society should be trying to reach the point where being gay is no longer something to be embarrassed about. And calling someone a "pussy" as a synonym for wimp is blatantly sexist, and the insult needs to die right now. But in my experience, both insults seem to come more out of ignorance than malice. See Hanlon's Razor.
Labelling an entire movie as homophobic or racist, just because an idiot says something idiotic? That's going too far. The Twins may technically be "good guys", but they're definitely not good people (er... bots). I'll never understand why people get offended when bad people do bad things in movies. If James Bond nemesis Blofeld were to fire missles across Europe, killing millions of people, the audience would say, "Get him, James!" and keep watching on the edge of their seats. But if Blofeld were to use the "N word", people would picket the movie.
Not that the Twins are the only potentially offensive things in the movie (referring to former Oompa Loompa Deep Roy as a "munchkin" comes to mind), but they do manage to consolidate a lot of potential hatred into one place. Some will accuse the Twins themselves of being racial stereotypes, which is bad, but I don't really see it. They do talk some street, but they also talk some redneck, and overall they're like a conglomeration of idiots from all over the place. Think Jar Jar meets Eminem meets Larry the Cable Guy. In any event, they're dumb but forgivable, pretty much like the rest of the movie.
I probably will not buy this one on DVD, at least not until we have a bigger TV. This movie begs for big screens and insane sound systems. Without that, it's would be like watching roller coaster footage. Not totally un-fun, but it just makes you long for the real thing.
To sum up:
From a quality standpoint, that which you would call a "good movie", I give Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen one out of five stars. From a "totally kick-ass good time" standpoint, I give it four out of five stars. It's up to you which is more important.
Now, bring on GI Joe. It looks even worse, so you know it's going to rock.
Back in school, I considered myself superior to my classmates, because I thought my tastes were more refined. Okay, granted, my favorite movie was "Aliens", which is by no means an art film. But the fact that I could enjoy plays, musicals, and explosion-free movies, made me think that I was better than other people. I often thought of myself as Diane Chambers from Cheers, the only cultured person in a room full of lowbrow drunks. It wasn't until years later that I realized just how annoying that Diane character was, and that "pretentious" is a bad thing.
But everyone's tastes change when they get older. Some of my formerly-lowbrow friends finally got girlfriends/wives, and amazingly started to enjoy romantic comedies. Or if not enjoy, at least tolerate. Rom-coms are not exactly Shakespeare, but at least it's a step up from only watching action films. Well, a step sideways... either way, it's a broadening of horizons.
Meanwhile my own tastes may be heading in the opposite direction. I still love plays, musicals, and explosion-free movies, but I don't need to pay big bucks for them. I'm happy watching my rom-coms on DVD. But on the big screen, I want explosions. That's the only reason to pay the increasingly outrageous theater prices. I want big special effects, giant monsters, space battles, and plots that defy logic. I want the director to build a gigantic technocratic post-apocolyptic city using nothing but CGI and Blade Runner references... then I want him to destroy it with a cybernetically-enhanced radioactively-mutated Cloverfield-esque psycho-monster.
I'm not sitting there to think. I do enough of that at home. When I pop in a DVD, I have a pause button I can freely use when I want to consider the ramifications of what was just said. If I want a deeper plot, I'll read a book. But in the theater I want to see things too big to fit on a home television. In that respect, Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen is pure win.
I went in to this movie with the knowledge that everyone was blasting it to pieces. Roger Ebert called it "a horrible experience of unbearable length." Well, of course Ebert only likes classy films, right? Except of course he liked the first one. A reviewer from the Bilerico Project (a LGBTQ group) walked out halfway, calling it "Homophobia in Disguise."
Maybe the bad press helped. Maybe it lowered my standards so I didn't expect too much from the movie. I do remember telling KJ a few times going in, "Now this is probably going to suck, so just enjoy the eye candy." But I think I would have liked this anyway.
Transformers: RotF is a fun movie. Now that I've seen it, I agree with everything bad that was said about it. It is too long. It does have touches of racism, sexism, and homophobia. It has a terrible script and some horrible acting. It does not deserve to win any awards.
Why can't more reviewers learn the difference between good and entertaining? I mean, The Exorcist is a wonderful movie. It's wonderfully written, perfectly acted, well-directed, the whole package. It deserves every accolade it's ever received. I'm glad I saw it... in a way, I feel like I'm a better person for having seen it. However, I would rather shave my head with a cheese grater than sit through it again.
I like a lot of good movies, and I like a lot of bad movies. But the most important factor to me is the entertainment factor. The worst thing a movie can do is bore me. A bad script is still interesting if it's really bad. Bad acting can be laughed at. But a boring movie can not be saved, even if it's a masterpiece in every other way.
Anyway, T:RotF is pure Michael Bay, a statement which will immediately either draw you in or send you fleeing. It's filled with slow motion explosions, rock-em sock-em robots, and lots of eye candy. A good portion of it feels more like a tech demo than a movie. It keeps your eyes busy; even when Transformers are just standing around talking, the camera keeps rotating around them just to show off the SFX.
Like the first film, the few minutes of human interactions involve embarrassing parental moments and crude humor, like replacing the first movie's masturbation jokes with humping dogs. They kept a lot of the T1's human cast, even in places where it doesn't make a lot of sense. I mean, does everything happen to the same set of soldiers? Are these same soldiers always the closest ones to whatever is happening in the world? And bringing back John Turturro's character was both contrived and pointless, considering that he was one of the things dragging down the first movie.
Now, the offensive stuff... If you recall, the first Transformers had a few silly stereotypes in there, but spread out through the movie's many characters. Most notable was the over-the-top black kid whose dialogue felt like it was written by a staff of white guys trying to talk street. But other elements were there; the foreign phone operator, the Jive-talking Autobot Jazz, etc. One or two references don't bother me. If you have five African-Americans in a movie, and one of them talks like the "Jive Dudes" from Airplane!, it just means that the character happens to talk like that. But when all non-white characters in a movie perpetuate stereotypes, it seems like the director is a racist.
T2 manages to get it out of its system by wrapping up most of the movie's potential offensive elements into a pair of characters. Mudflap and Skids, collectively known as the Twins. They are silly/stupid gagbots, the kind of comic relief I always hate. Why so many writers think every script needs a Jar Jar, I'll never know. The writers do this to make it more entertaining to little kids, but even when I was a little kid I hated all the Orkos and Snarfs and T-Bobs in my favorite cartoons. But the Twins aren't just stupid klutzes like Jar Jar, they also go out of their way to be offensive in as many ways as possible.
But that's okay, because the movie establishes pretty quickly that the characters are stupid jerks. I don't mind if a stupid jerk is also shown to be a homophobe (for example), because that's like the director saying, "See? Homophobes are idiots." Not to apologize for these characters, but I do think the Bilerico Project article took it too hard. The reviewer complains about the use of "pussy" as a pejorative (sexist), and one of the twins taunting a guy with "you gonna go cry to your boyfriend?" (homophobic).
Both are things I do wish people wouldn't say. Accusing someone of being gay is no longer a relevant insult, because society should be trying to reach the point where being gay is no longer something to be embarrassed about. And calling someone a "pussy" as a synonym for wimp is blatantly sexist, and the insult needs to die right now. But in my experience, both insults seem to come more out of ignorance than malice. See Hanlon's Razor.
Labelling an entire movie as homophobic or racist, just because an idiot says something idiotic? That's going too far. The Twins may technically be "good guys", but they're definitely not good people (er... bots). I'll never understand why people get offended when bad people do bad things in movies. If James Bond nemesis Blofeld were to fire missles across Europe, killing millions of people, the audience would say, "Get him, James!" and keep watching on the edge of their seats. But if Blofeld were to use the "N word", people would picket the movie.
Not that the Twins are the only potentially offensive things in the movie (referring to former Oompa Loompa Deep Roy as a "munchkin" comes to mind), but they do manage to consolidate a lot of potential hatred into one place. Some will accuse the Twins themselves of being racial stereotypes, which is bad, but I don't really see it. They do talk some street, but they also talk some redneck, and overall they're like a conglomeration of idiots from all over the place. Think Jar Jar meets Eminem meets Larry the Cable Guy. In any event, they're dumb but forgivable, pretty much like the rest of the movie.
I probably will not buy this one on DVD, at least not until we have a bigger TV. This movie begs for big screens and insane sound systems. Without that, it's would be like watching roller coaster footage. Not totally un-fun, but it just makes you long for the real thing.
To sum up:
From a quality standpoint, that which you would call a "good movie", I give Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen one out of five stars. From a "totally kick-ass good time" standpoint, I give it four out of five stars. It's up to you which is more important.
Now, bring on GI Joe. It looks even worse, so you know it's going to rock.
Tuesday, June 16, 2009
Why Is This So Popular?
And excerpt from "New Moon", second book of the Twilight series (spoilers):
Bella (the vapid twit who has set feminism back 30 years) and Jacob (the Native American werewolf with anger management issues) are being angsty in the kitchen. The phone rings. Jacob answers, even though it's Bella's house and she's just as close to the phone. But it advances the plot better when Jacob answers. It's Edward Cullen (the hearthrob vampire who inspires lust in all teenage girls, despite never doing anything even remotely romantic). However, for some strange reason Jacob believes it is Doctor Carlisle Cullen (Edward's sort-of vampire father), a misunderstanding which furthers the plot. Edward, who is afraid Bella might be dead (a misunderstanding which furthers the plot), asks to speak to Bella's father. Jacob answers, "He's at the funeral" (referring to a different funeral). Edward takes this to mean Bella's funeral, which confirms his belief that Bella is dead (a misunderstanding which furthers the plot). Afterwards, Janet and Chrissy (a pair of unicorns) help Jack (a leprechaun) pretend to be gay so he isn't evicted by Mr. Furley (a zombie), after getting locked in a freezer because of a misunderstanding.
Bella (the vapid twit who has set feminism back 30 years) and Jacob (the Native American werewolf with anger management issues) are being angsty in the kitchen. The phone rings. Jacob answers, even though it's Bella's house and she's just as close to the phone. But it advances the plot better when Jacob answers. It's Edward Cullen (the hearthrob vampire who inspires lust in all teenage girls, despite never doing anything even remotely romantic). However, for some strange reason Jacob believes it is Doctor Carlisle Cullen (Edward's sort-of vampire father), a misunderstanding which furthers the plot. Edward, who is afraid Bella might be dead (a misunderstanding which furthers the plot), asks to speak to Bella's father. Jacob answers, "He's at the funeral" (referring to a different funeral). Edward takes this to mean Bella's funeral, which confirms his belief that Bella is dead (a misunderstanding which furthers the plot). Afterwards, Janet and Chrissy (a pair of unicorns) help Jack (a leprechaun) pretend to be gay so he isn't evicted by Mr. Furley (a zombie), after getting locked in a freezer because of a misunderstanding.
Sunday, May 31, 2009
Metroid Geek
Huzzah! In a couple of months, they're releasing "Metroid Prime Trilogy" for the Wii! All three MP games, on one disc, updated with Wii controls! I'm a huge fan of the Metroid series, but I never owned a Gamecube, so I missed the first two MP games. Yes, I know the Wii can play GC games, but I'm glad I waited anyway, because I love MP3's control scheme.
The original Metroid for the 8-bit NES was one of my first true loves. The first thing I ever heard about the game was the ending. Um... spoiler alert... the main character turns out to be a woman. That would have been enough to sell me in itself - I always like female leads, and Mulan-type plot devices. But then the game threw in dozens of other cool features. You have a cannon for an arm. You can turn into a ball. Exploration. Multiple weapons. Sci-fi setting. I simply had to own the game.
I remember being very into the game's plot. Now, we're talking about a time when some games actually did have well-developed plots, but those plots were only told through the instruction manual. With Metroid, there's a paragraph of text in the opening splash screen, and another paragraph when you beat it. Everything else is up to you to figure out. But the manual had several pages worth of exposition, explaining where the Metroids came from, and why Samus was hired to defeat the pirates. I won't lie, it was fairly cheesy. But I liked it so much at the time that drew my own comic books based on it.
The original Metroid for the 8-bit NES was one of my first true loves. The first thing I ever heard about the game was the ending. Um... spoiler alert... the main character turns out to be a woman. That would have been enough to sell me in itself - I always like female leads, and Mulan-type plot devices. But then the game threw in dozens of other cool features. You have a cannon for an arm. You can turn into a ball. Exploration. Multiple weapons. Sci-fi setting. I simply had to own the game.
I remember being very into the game's plot. Now, we're talking about a time when some games actually did have well-developed plots, but those plots were only told through the instruction manual. With Metroid, there's a paragraph of text in the opening splash screen, and another paragraph when you beat it. Everything else is up to you to figure out. But the manual had several pages worth of exposition, explaining where the Metroids came from, and why Samus was hired to defeat the pirates. I won't lie, it was fairly cheesy. But I liked it so much at the time that drew my own comic books based on it.
*old geezer mode* Kids these days just don't know how easy they have it. I don't know why they even keep printing those gall-darn instruction booklets, nobody reads them any more. Nowadays the plot is laid out in front of you as you play, and even the controls are taught to you one button at a time in the annoying tutorial mode. Why, the first time I played "The Legend of Zelda", I didn't know who Zelda was, what I was looking for, or how to bomb rocks to find secret entrances. And I didn't have no newfangled internet to look it up, either. I had to make do with my intellect, perseverance, intuition, patience, skills, and several hundred dollars worth of Nintendo Power magazines and strategy guides.
Another thing I liked about Metroid's plot was that it reminded me of the Alien movies. (There's a pretty good comparison at this site.) Alien has long been my favorite horror movie, and Aliens my favorite action flick, and of course they never made an Alien 3... seriously, they didn't... don't make me get the hammer... *ahem* Where was I? Okay, so cosmic jellyfish aren't anything like the creations of HR Giger, but there were a few plot similarities that I found entertaining at the time.
It was also one of the first games I played where the sequels formed a coherent storyline. Okay, there was the issue of, "Why doesn't Samus still have all the weapons she gained in the last game?" But I really enjoyed how the first game's ending led to Samus Aran's Metroid extinction mission in the second game, and how the one surviving Metroid at the end of Metroid II set up the plot for Super Metroid. The three make up a perfect trilogy, and any games after that are just a bonus.
Compare to Zelda - the second game was clearly a direct sequel, but what was with the third? The SNES Zelda was an incredible game, but when did it take place? Was it a sequel or a prequel or a remake? There are dozens of Zelda games now, and some of them are sequels to each other, but it seems like they reboot the franchise every third game or so. I hate it when the sequels screw up continuity like that. Like in Tetris - the pieces used to be called Tetrads, but now they're called Tetrominos. I mean, I can't even keep up with the storyline any more. Did the L-piece survive the war? Did the square-shaped piece ever avenge his father's death? For a while there was even a rumor that the straight piece wasn't really straight, but who can keep track any more?
...but anyway...
My take on the Metroid series, in not-quite chronological order:
Metroid (NES) - The game that started it all was really impressive back when it was released. It practically invented a lot of elements that are still being used in games today. It was one of the first side-scrollers to feature exploration instead of just moving to the right. It was one of the first console games made with the intention of NOT beating it in one sitting, instead giving you a password feature for continuing. The idea of a woman in a power-armor spacesuit with arm-cannon... well, the concept screams "Anime", but this was before Japanese animation was really flooding the States, so to me it was a brand new concept. Really, just having a female protagaonist was pretty new to me. Samus is by no means the first female game character, but she was one the earliest female video game badasses. (And I strongly suspect that Ms Pac-Man was actually Pac-Man in drag.)
However, the game itself hasn't really aged well. I love classic side-scrollers, but for me things really took off around 16-bit. I very much appreciate this game for starting the beloved series, but I will probably never play it again without updated graphics. I hate to say it, but the game's universe is better than the game itself. It's fairly damning to admit that I'd rather re-read the instruction booklet than to play the game.
Metroid II (Gameboy) - In many ways better than the first game, but I wish it hadn't been on the Gameboy. It had better play control than the first, and even had improved graphics (which is surprising, considering the system). But with the black & white screen, it was hard to navigate. You couldn't always tell what area you were in, making it difficult to know where to go next. This problem was compounded by the lack of visible screen area. Even playing it in color didn't improve things much.
Super Metroid (SNES) - IMO, the best video game of all time. Spot-on-perfect play control. The best graphics 16-bit had to offer. Lots of areas to explore, tons of weapons and items to find, and most importantly it was FUN. I do have one complaint, however... there was one special move, where you could bounce off of walls, that was too difficult to pull off. It was made worse by the fact that there was one area you could not pass without using this move. With enough tries you will make it, and once you do, you never have to do it again. But it's tedious, and is an unfortunate black mark on what could have been history's only 100% perfect game.
Metroid Fusion (GBA) - This didn't wow me, but it was nice after all this time to play another side-scrolling Metroid game. Regarding graphics and play control, it's probably every bit as good as Super Metroid, but I didn't really care for the set-up. The way it herds you around different sections of the space station make the areas feel too much like levels, giving the whole game a more "video-gamey" feel. The exploration is still there, but it's just a little too controlled. Enjoyable, if forgettable.
Metroid: Zero Mission (GBA) - This did wow me, but only because I'm such a Metroid geek. Zero Mission is a remake of the first Metroid game, but with SNES-style graphics, better play control, and actual exposition. I thought it was a little short, but a lot of handheld games feel too short to me. My only real regret is that with the release of the DSi (which no longer plays GBA games), that Zero Mission is effectively off the market. I hope it turns up again for another system, perhaps as a two-pack with Fusion. Or maybe they could alter the graphics enough to look good on a TV, and release it for Wii's Virtual Console.
Metroid Prime Pinball (DS) - I'm going to pretend this did not happen.
Metroid Prime Hunters (DS) - A beautiful game considering it's on a handheld system, but unfortunately marred by a complicated play control system. The game actually gives you two completely different control setup options, probably because they realized neither one was very good. Hunters is intended to be played online against other players, so the 1-player mode feels tacked on. However, the online mode is rough on beginners, since you will undoubtedly find yourself in a deathmatch against a pro. So you have to play through the bland single player mode just to learn the controls, in the hopes that you won't get creamed quite as quickly in the deathmatches.
Metroid Prime 1 & 2 (Gamecube) - I'll know in a couple of months.
Metroid Prime 3 (Wii) - A truly wonderful game that makes me wish I was still a kid. The controls feel complicated at first, but within 30 minutes you're Samus Aran. Your right hand is your arm cannon, and you use it just like she does. The nunchuck moves you, and the setup works so well, I never again want to play a First-Person Shooter using two joysticks. Even mouse/keyboard pales in comparison. There is simply no FPS control setup that works more intuitively than the Wiimote/Nunchuk combo. It's like your right hand is playing a "Duck Hunt"-style light gun game, while your left hand is exploring 3D worlds. It might take a little more practice for the stubborn, but it really pays off.
That said, Metroid Prime 3 is not a perfect game. It has some long (but creatitively-disguised) load times here and there, and some of the puzzles are too difficult, and sometimes you feel really lost if you get off track. Some of its features are designed for anal-retentive collectors, those who are determined to probe every square inch of the game. (I used to be one of those people.) And, towards the end, it actually features an escort mission. What idiots put that in? Don't they know that gamers got together a couple of years ago and officially declared escort missions to be the worst thing in the history of the universe?
But despite the flaws, it's still an incredible gaming experience. My nostalgic side still prefers Super Metroid, but the games are so different it's apples-and-oranges.
Related games - Metroids also appeared in Kid Icarus (under the name Komayto), while Samus has had cameos in games like Tetris (NES version), Super Mario RPG, and the Smash Bros series. I mention this only to show off my geekiness.
Minor rant, I was a bit disappointed when Nintendo finally settled on a design for Samus Aran's out-of-suit appearance. They'd featured the occasional unhelmeted drawing before, in places like Nintendo Power or the "Captain N" comic books, but it wasn't until much later that they seemed to pick one version and stick with it. What they picked - a blonde bombshell who looks like a Playboy model - is disturbing to me. She looks more like a "Dead Or Alive" fighter than a space bounty hunter. Is this the most creative they could get? Did they have to make her every 15-year-old's sterotypical vision of perfect beauty? Shouldn't she look tougher? Did she even have to be human? At least they could have made her a cyborg. Don't those watermelon-sized bosoms make it difficult to squeeze into that armor?
In the original game's instruction booklet, they say, "...but his true form is shrouded in mystery." Of course this is foreshadowing that she turns out to be female, but couldn't they have played with that a little? Given her a reason to be mysterious? Sure, her second-quest appearance in the original game looked like a normal human, but the sprite didn't have a lot of detail; they still had the leeway to make her more interesting. I don't hate her because she's beautiful. I just wish Nintendo understood she didn't have to be.
But whatever. I still love the series, even if I don't agree with every decision or play every game. It's going to be a long wait till August.
Update: Shortly after posting this blog, I learned of "Metroid: Other M" that was previewed at E3. Looks awesome, and I can't wait to find out more. I am a little worried about the play control, but I'm sure they'll pull it off.
Update 2: My early impressions of Metroid: Other M are here. I'm no longer sure they pulled it off.
Another thing I liked about Metroid's plot was that it reminded me of the Alien movies. (There's a pretty good comparison at this site.) Alien has long been my favorite horror movie, and Aliens my favorite action flick, and of course they never made an Alien 3... seriously, they didn't... don't make me get the hammer... *ahem* Where was I? Okay, so cosmic jellyfish aren't anything like the creations of HR Giger, but there were a few plot similarities that I found entertaining at the time.
It was also one of the first games I played where the sequels formed a coherent storyline. Okay, there was the issue of, "Why doesn't Samus still have all the weapons she gained in the last game?" But I really enjoyed how the first game's ending led to Samus Aran's Metroid extinction mission in the second game, and how the one surviving Metroid at the end of Metroid II set up the plot for Super Metroid. The three make up a perfect trilogy, and any games after that are just a bonus.
Compare to Zelda - the second game was clearly a direct sequel, but what was with the third? The SNES Zelda was an incredible game, but when did it take place? Was it a sequel or a prequel or a remake? There are dozens of Zelda games now, and some of them are sequels to each other, but it seems like they reboot the franchise every third game or so. I hate it when the sequels screw up continuity like that. Like in Tetris - the pieces used to be called Tetrads, but now they're called Tetrominos. I mean, I can't even keep up with the storyline any more. Did the L-piece survive the war? Did the square-shaped piece ever avenge his father's death? For a while there was even a rumor that the straight piece wasn't really straight, but who can keep track any more?
...but anyway...
My take on the Metroid series, in not-quite chronological order:
Metroid (NES) - The game that started it all was really impressive back when it was released. It practically invented a lot of elements that are still being used in games today. It was one of the first side-scrollers to feature exploration instead of just moving to the right. It was one of the first console games made with the intention of NOT beating it in one sitting, instead giving you a password feature for continuing. The idea of a woman in a power-armor spacesuit with arm-cannon... well, the concept screams "Anime", but this was before Japanese animation was really flooding the States, so to me it was a brand new concept. Really, just having a female protagaonist was pretty new to me. Samus is by no means the first female game character, but she was one the earliest female video game badasses. (And I strongly suspect that Ms Pac-Man was actually Pac-Man in drag.)
However, the game itself hasn't really aged well. I love classic side-scrollers, but for me things really took off around 16-bit. I very much appreciate this game for starting the beloved series, but I will probably never play it again without updated graphics. I hate to say it, but the game's universe is better than the game itself. It's fairly damning to admit that I'd rather re-read the instruction booklet than to play the game.
Metroid II (Gameboy) - In many ways better than the first game, but I wish it hadn't been on the Gameboy. It had better play control than the first, and even had improved graphics (which is surprising, considering the system). But with the black & white screen, it was hard to navigate. You couldn't always tell what area you were in, making it difficult to know where to go next. This problem was compounded by the lack of visible screen area. Even playing it in color didn't improve things much.
Super Metroid (SNES) - IMO, the best video game of all time. Spot-on-perfect play control. The best graphics 16-bit had to offer. Lots of areas to explore, tons of weapons and items to find, and most importantly it was FUN. I do have one complaint, however... there was one special move, where you could bounce off of walls, that was too difficult to pull off. It was made worse by the fact that there was one area you could not pass without using this move. With enough tries you will make it, and once you do, you never have to do it again. But it's tedious, and is an unfortunate black mark on what could have been history's only 100% perfect game.
Metroid Fusion (GBA) - This didn't wow me, but it was nice after all this time to play another side-scrolling Metroid game. Regarding graphics and play control, it's probably every bit as good as Super Metroid, but I didn't really care for the set-up. The way it herds you around different sections of the space station make the areas feel too much like levels, giving the whole game a more "video-gamey" feel. The exploration is still there, but it's just a little too controlled. Enjoyable, if forgettable.
Metroid: Zero Mission (GBA) - This did wow me, but only because I'm such a Metroid geek. Zero Mission is a remake of the first Metroid game, but with SNES-style graphics, better play control, and actual exposition. I thought it was a little short, but a lot of handheld games feel too short to me. My only real regret is that with the release of the DSi (which no longer plays GBA games), that Zero Mission is effectively off the market. I hope it turns up again for another system, perhaps as a two-pack with Fusion. Or maybe they could alter the graphics enough to look good on a TV, and release it for Wii's Virtual Console.
Metroid Prime Pinball (DS) - I'm going to pretend this did not happen.
Metroid Prime Hunters (DS) - A beautiful game considering it's on a handheld system, but unfortunately marred by a complicated play control system. The game actually gives you two completely different control setup options, probably because they realized neither one was very good. Hunters is intended to be played online against other players, so the 1-player mode feels tacked on. However, the online mode is rough on beginners, since you will undoubtedly find yourself in a deathmatch against a pro. So you have to play through the bland single player mode just to learn the controls, in the hopes that you won't get creamed quite as quickly in the deathmatches.
Metroid Prime 1 & 2 (Gamecube) - I'll know in a couple of months.
Metroid Prime 3 (Wii) - A truly wonderful game that makes me wish I was still a kid. The controls feel complicated at first, but within 30 minutes you're Samus Aran. Your right hand is your arm cannon, and you use it just like she does. The nunchuck moves you, and the setup works so well, I never again want to play a First-Person Shooter using two joysticks. Even mouse/keyboard pales in comparison. There is simply no FPS control setup that works more intuitively than the Wiimote/Nunchuk combo. It's like your right hand is playing a "Duck Hunt"-style light gun game, while your left hand is exploring 3D worlds. It might take a little more practice for the stubborn, but it really pays off.
That said, Metroid Prime 3 is not a perfect game. It has some long (but creatitively-disguised) load times here and there, and some of the puzzles are too difficult, and sometimes you feel really lost if you get off track. Some of its features are designed for anal-retentive collectors, those who are determined to probe every square inch of the game. (I used to be one of those people.) And, towards the end, it actually features an escort mission. What idiots put that in? Don't they know that gamers got together a couple of years ago and officially declared escort missions to be the worst thing in the history of the universe?
But despite the flaws, it's still an incredible gaming experience. My nostalgic side still prefers Super Metroid, but the games are so different it's apples-and-oranges.
Related games - Metroids also appeared in Kid Icarus (under the name Komayto), while Samus has had cameos in games like Tetris (NES version), Super Mario RPG, and the Smash Bros series. I mention this only to show off my geekiness.
Minor rant, I was a bit disappointed when Nintendo finally settled on a design for Samus Aran's out-of-suit appearance. They'd featured the occasional unhelmeted drawing before, in places like Nintendo Power or the "Captain N" comic books, but it wasn't until much later that they seemed to pick one version and stick with it. What they picked - a blonde bombshell who looks like a Playboy model - is disturbing to me. She looks more like a "Dead Or Alive" fighter than a space bounty hunter. Is this the most creative they could get? Did they have to make her every 15-year-old's sterotypical vision of perfect beauty? Shouldn't she look tougher? Did she even have to be human? At least they could have made her a cyborg. Don't those watermelon-sized bosoms make it difficult to squeeze into that armor?
In the original game's instruction booklet, they say, "...but his true form is shrouded in mystery." Of course this is foreshadowing that she turns out to be female, but couldn't they have played with that a little? Given her a reason to be mysterious? Sure, her second-quest appearance in the original game looked like a normal human, but the sprite didn't have a lot of detail; they still had the leeway to make her more interesting. I don't hate her because she's beautiful. I just wish Nintendo understood she didn't have to be.
But whatever. I still love the series, even if I don't agree with every decision or play every game. It's going to be a long wait till August.
Update: Shortly after posting this blog, I learned of "Metroid: Other M" that was previewed at E3. Looks awesome, and I can't wait to find out more. I am a little worried about the play control, but I'm sure they'll pull it off.
Update 2: My early impressions of Metroid: Other M are here. I'm no longer sure they pulled it off.
Sunday, May 10, 2009
Star Trek Origins: Enterprise
(a.k.a. Lens Flare: The Motion Picture)
This weekend KJ and I saw Star Trek, and we both loved it.
As much as I love nearly all versions of Star Trek, I agree with J. J. Abrams that it was greatly in need of a reboot. But given the nature of Star Trek fans, I was afraid that such an endeavor would be doomed to failure. No, not because it was an odd-numbered Star Trek film (besides, this is zero, not eleven). It's just that sci-fi fanboys love to hate things... I've often said that the difference between a sci-fi fan and a regular person is that the regular person enjoys sci-fi.
The worst is that continuity-obsessed Trekkies insist on incorporating the silliness of the 60's series with the more modern productions. Look, nothing against the original series. It was ground-breaking and ahead of its time. But for me, Star Trek started with Next Gen. When the last TV series, "Enterprise" hit the air, gazillions of fans were livid, because they felt it screwed up the original series continuity. They were wrong, of course, for three reasons:
1. The show made great efforts to explain continuity. Especially in the final season, where they even explained the Klingon head-bumps thing.
2. The Original Series, revolutionary though it was, was full of continuity errors of its own. Not their fault, they just didn't know it was going to take off, so they didn't bother keeping track of everything. But in any event, I prefer to think of the OS as a retelling of events, like a holodeck recreation based on the captain's logs, rather than a perfect video of the story.
3. Enterprise takes place first, so anything it says takes precedence over the original series. It's also 1000 times better, so again it takes precedence over the original series. So if there's any continuity discrepencies between the two, Enterprise automatically wins, and the OS can suck it. My blog, my logic, so there.
I loved Enterprise (well, except for the Xindi season), so it pisses me off to no end that people who consider themselves Trekkies wouldn't even give it a chance. I feel a bit vindicated by the fact that there's an Enterprise reference in the new movie.
So some people will hate the new Star Trek movie no matter what, but I think it will please everyone who is actually capable of being pleased. I'll try to say this without spoilers, but they managed to both break continuity while maintaining continuity, in a way that should please both newcomers and life-long Trekkers. KJ, who knows the Original Series much better than I do, spent the first half of the movie counting the "mistakes" where it didn't agree with the 60's. But thanks to a bit of time-travel and its butterfly effect, every difference is explainable. At the end - okay, I can't avoid spoilers - it's a given that the entire TV series would have been affected in subtle ways... I can't wait to re-watch the DVDs and see if anything's changed. ;)
The casting is spot-on. My favorite was Simon Pegg as Scotty, though I wish he'd had more screen time.
Well, there was a bit of unevenness, IMO, in that some of the players seemed to be trying new takes on their characters, while others were trying to emulate the originals as much as possible, almost to the point of parody. For example, McCoy sometimes seemed like the actor was doing a comedic impression of the original character, while Sulu didn't even attempt to lower his voice. There were a few times when it felt like a bunch of fans playing dress-up for a convention, but most of the time I was able to lose myself in the movie.
I was afraid Kirk would be written as a total badass, someone who can accomplish anything just because he's the goddamn Kirk. But while he does have the "Never give up, never surrender" attitude parodied in Galaxy Quest, he actually gets his ass kicked in most of his fights.
This movie is a bit less family-friendly than previous Treks, but it was time. The squeaky-clean attitude was holding them back, and keeping them from being able to compete with stuff like Battlestar Galactica. To be honest, I've always preferred optimistic futures (like Star Trek) to pessimistic (post-apocalyptic, etc) sci-fi. Mainly because I like to believe that while humankind will always have conflict, overall things will get better and better. Otherwise, what's the point? Shows like the new Battlestar just depress me. But even so, Trek has usually been a little too clean. I think the new movie represents the best balance so far.
I really hope this takes off, and gets lots of sequels. I wish the movie was the pilot for a new TV series, which rewrites the original continuity. But I seriously doubt that's a possibility. Oh well, I'll take this new Trek however I can get it.
Abrams buffs: In addition to the standard Slusho reference, there's also a creature that, while not exactly like the Cloverfield monster, at least looks like it belongs in the same universe. And a question... I've never watched Lost. Is Abrams always so obsessed with lensflare? Every computer, every star, anything with light, makes bright streaks across most of the movie. It's pretty, but it gets a bit distracting after a while.
This weekend KJ and I saw Star Trek, and we both loved it.
As much as I love nearly all versions of Star Trek, I agree with J. J. Abrams that it was greatly in need of a reboot. But given the nature of Star Trek fans, I was afraid that such an endeavor would be doomed to failure. No, not because it was an odd-numbered Star Trek film (besides, this is zero, not eleven). It's just that sci-fi fanboys love to hate things... I've often said that the difference between a sci-fi fan and a regular person is that the regular person enjoys sci-fi.
The worst is that continuity-obsessed Trekkies insist on incorporating the silliness of the 60's series with the more modern productions. Look, nothing against the original series. It was ground-breaking and ahead of its time. But for me, Star Trek started with Next Gen. When the last TV series, "Enterprise" hit the air, gazillions of fans were livid, because they felt it screwed up the original series continuity. They were wrong, of course, for three reasons:
1. The show made great efforts to explain continuity. Especially in the final season, where they even explained the Klingon head-bumps thing.
2. The Original Series, revolutionary though it was, was full of continuity errors of its own. Not their fault, they just didn't know it was going to take off, so they didn't bother keeping track of everything. But in any event, I prefer to think of the OS as a retelling of events, like a holodeck recreation based on the captain's logs, rather than a perfect video of the story.
3. Enterprise takes place first, so anything it says takes precedence over the original series. It's also 1000 times better, so again it takes precedence over the original series. So if there's any continuity discrepencies between the two, Enterprise automatically wins, and the OS can suck it. My blog, my logic, so there.
I loved Enterprise (well, except for the Xindi season), so it pisses me off to no end that people who consider themselves Trekkies wouldn't even give it a chance. I feel a bit vindicated by the fact that there's an Enterprise reference in the new movie.
So some people will hate the new Star Trek movie no matter what, but I think it will please everyone who is actually capable of being pleased. I'll try to say this without spoilers, but they managed to both break continuity while maintaining continuity, in a way that should please both newcomers and life-long Trekkers. KJ, who knows the Original Series much better than I do, spent the first half of the movie counting the "mistakes" where it didn't agree with the 60's. But thanks to a bit of time-travel and its butterfly effect, every difference is explainable. At the end - okay, I can't avoid spoilers - it's a given that the entire TV series would have been affected in subtle ways... I can't wait to re-watch the DVDs and see if anything's changed. ;)
The casting is spot-on. My favorite was Simon Pegg as Scotty, though I wish he'd had more screen time.
Well, there was a bit of unevenness, IMO, in that some of the players seemed to be trying new takes on their characters, while others were trying to emulate the originals as much as possible, almost to the point of parody. For example, McCoy sometimes seemed like the actor was doing a comedic impression of the original character, while Sulu didn't even attempt to lower his voice. There were a few times when it felt like a bunch of fans playing dress-up for a convention, but most of the time I was able to lose myself in the movie.
I was afraid Kirk would be written as a total badass, someone who can accomplish anything just because he's the goddamn Kirk. But while he does have the "Never give up, never surrender" attitude parodied in Galaxy Quest, he actually gets his ass kicked in most of his fights.
This movie is a bit less family-friendly than previous Treks, but it was time. The squeaky-clean attitude was holding them back, and keeping them from being able to compete with stuff like Battlestar Galactica. To be honest, I've always preferred optimistic futures (like Star Trek) to pessimistic (post-apocalyptic, etc) sci-fi. Mainly because I like to believe that while humankind will always have conflict, overall things will get better and better. Otherwise, what's the point? Shows like the new Battlestar just depress me. But even so, Trek has usually been a little too clean. I think the new movie represents the best balance so far.
I really hope this takes off, and gets lots of sequels. I wish the movie was the pilot for a new TV series, which rewrites the original continuity. But I seriously doubt that's a possibility. Oh well, I'll take this new Trek however I can get it.
Abrams buffs: In addition to the standard Slusho reference, there's also a creature that, while not exactly like the Cloverfield monster, at least looks like it belongs in the same universe. And a question... I've never watched Lost. Is Abrams always so obsessed with lensflare? Every computer, every star, anything with light, makes bright streaks across most of the movie. It's pretty, but it gets a bit distracting after a while.
Friday, April 24, 2009
Sunday, March 15, 2009
"It's The Next Harry Potter!"
I finally saw Twilight, but I'm not here to review that. It really wasn't bad enough or good enough for me to care enough to analyze. What I do want to rant on a little is the hype it received when it was hot.
I don't know why this bothers me so much... but...
I hate trendwatchers. Twilight has been called "the next Harry Potter", probably by the same drooling idiots who called Kurt Cobain "the next John Lennon". Frankly, I'm getting sick of every new book being called "the next Harry Potter". Any time a book sells more than three copies lately, somebody labels it "the next Harry Potter." The phrase has very quickly become so overused, that it instantly fills me with rage. They said it about Lemony Snicket - did that really catch on? They said it about Eragon - anybody seen an Eragon T-shirt lately? Bedsheets? Candy bar? No? Why, just the other day I was using my Golden Compass toothbrush while wearing my Spiderwick Chronicles underwear! Seriously, though, none of these are bad properties, and they are perfectly deserving of whatever success they get. But that doesn't mean we'll see conventions and theme parks dedicated to them.
So I wish Twilight a world of success, and I didn't totally hate the movie. I haven't read the books, but I'll give them the benefit of the doubt and assume their popularity was well earned. But can we please stop the comparisons? It's apples and oranges. If we're judging it by content, then it should be compared to other vampire stories. But if we're just judging it by success, you might as well call the Nintendo Wii "the next Harry Potter."
IMO, Harry Potter was the next "Chronicles of Narnia" (1950). And Narnia was the next "Wizard of Oz" (1900). See a pattern here? You needn't start looking for "the next Harry Potter" until 2050! Even if you want to call Harry Potter "the next Star Wars", there's still a 20 year gap.
There probably won't be a successor to Harry Potter for a while. Possibly not in your lifetime. Get over it. Get on with your life. Continue to read and enjoy movies, but quit looking for things. Pottermania is the kind of thing that happens unexpectedly, not while you're looking for it, and definitely not when you try to force it. If you try to predict one of these things, I will laugh at you, and I will lose respect for you, and I will steal your car and run over your dog with it.
I don't know why this bothers me so much... but...
I hate trendwatchers. Twilight has been called "the next Harry Potter", probably by the same drooling idiots who called Kurt Cobain "the next John Lennon". Frankly, I'm getting sick of every new book being called "the next Harry Potter". Any time a book sells more than three copies lately, somebody labels it "the next Harry Potter." The phrase has very quickly become so overused, that it instantly fills me with rage. They said it about Lemony Snicket - did that really catch on? They said it about Eragon - anybody seen an Eragon T-shirt lately? Bedsheets? Candy bar? No? Why, just the other day I was using my Golden Compass toothbrush while wearing my Spiderwick Chronicles underwear! Seriously, though, none of these are bad properties, and they are perfectly deserving of whatever success they get. But that doesn't mean we'll see conventions and theme parks dedicated to them.
So I wish Twilight a world of success, and I didn't totally hate the movie. I haven't read the books, but I'll give them the benefit of the doubt and assume their popularity was well earned. But can we please stop the comparisons? It's apples and oranges. If we're judging it by content, then it should be compared to other vampire stories. But if we're just judging it by success, you might as well call the Nintendo Wii "the next Harry Potter."
IMO, Harry Potter was the next "Chronicles of Narnia" (1950). And Narnia was the next "Wizard of Oz" (1900). See a pattern here? You needn't start looking for "the next Harry Potter" until 2050! Even if you want to call Harry Potter "the next Star Wars", there's still a 20 year gap.
There probably won't be a successor to Harry Potter for a while. Possibly not in your lifetime. Get over it. Get on with your life. Continue to read and enjoy movies, but quit looking for things. Pottermania is the kind of thing that happens unexpectedly, not while you're looking for it, and definitely not when you try to force it. If you try to predict one of these things, I will laugh at you, and I will lose respect for you, and I will steal your car and run over your dog with it.
Thursday, March 12, 2009
Moving In
Note, I'm transferring a lot of my old blog entries from MySpace. If you go to this blog through the main page, you should see my posts in chronological order. But if you are using Google Reader or other such site/program, then my posts might show up in the order I transfered them, which won't make a bit of sense. But from this point on, my posts should show up in a sane order again.
Thursday, August 21, 2008
The Cat Burglar
Warning: Cutesy-Wutesy Kitty Story
KJ has been making pendants out of clay. When working with clay, she wooden tools. When she's not using them, she keeps them in a plastic bag, held together by a rubber band:
She keeps this downstairs, on the living room table. For the past few days, Sybil has been picking up the bag and carrying it around the room. I don't know, it must be a cat thing. We just keep taking it away from her, and putting it back on the table. So this morning, our precious Sybil brings KJ this as a present:
The plastic bag, still held together with the rubber band, minus the tools. She brought it to KJ as a gift, the same way a cat might bring its owner a dead mouse. But where were the tools? We looked all over the house, under every piece of furniture. We were dumbfounded. It seemed like there should have at least been a trail. I can picture her playing with them around the house, and losing them under furniture, as she often does with Q-Tips and milk rings. But there's nine tools in that set, we should have at least been able to find one of them.
In the end, it was Sybil who showed KJ where they were. Upstairs, in the bedroom, under some shoes. And neatly organized, for a cat.
Sybil was a bit protective of them, and didn't want to give them up. She kept complaining about us taking away her toy, and she keeps trying to get at them again.
KJ has been making pendants out of clay. When working with clay, she wooden tools. When she's not using them, she keeps them in a plastic bag, held together by a rubber band:
She keeps this downstairs, on the living room table. For the past few days, Sybil has been picking up the bag and carrying it around the room. I don't know, it must be a cat thing. We just keep taking it away from her, and putting it back on the table. So this morning, our precious Sybil brings KJ this as a present:
The plastic bag, still held together with the rubber band, minus the tools. She brought it to KJ as a gift, the same way a cat might bring its owner a dead mouse. But where were the tools? We looked all over the house, under every piece of furniture. We were dumbfounded. It seemed like there should have at least been a trail. I can picture her playing with them around the house, and losing them under furniture, as she often does with Q-Tips and milk rings. But there's nine tools in that set, we should have at least been able to find one of them.
In the end, it was Sybil who showed KJ where they were. Upstairs, in the bedroom, under some shoes. And neatly organized, for a cat.
Sybil was a bit protective of them, and didn't want to give them up. She kept complaining about us taking away her toy, and she keeps trying to get at them again.
Wednesday, July 23, 2008
Hancock
I'd really rather review the reviewers than the actual movie, if that's okay. Or even if it's not okay - it's my blog, so nyahh!
Dear Tennessean: Next time you don't do your homework, bring a note from your mother.
I read half-a-dozen reviews for this movie, and none of them were very positive. A typical review:
"Hancock starts out as a hilarious anti-hero movie, showing the flipside to the tired comic book formula. Unfortunately, halfway through the movie Hancock finds his morality, and from there it turns into the very type of movie it tried to parody - the standard formulaic super hero movie."
These reviewers are wrong. They're nuts. And worst of all, they're liars - they reviewed the trailer, not the movie. I know this because that's exactly the kind of review I might have written if I'd only watched the trailers. However, this is one of those cases where the actual movie bears very little resemblance to the trailers, which makes the reviewers flat out liars.
Regarding the first half of the movie, the reviewers are fairly close. Granted, they don't say anything you couldn't have found out from the trailers, but they're partly right. The Hancock character is a superhero who isn't very heroic, or rather a drunken slob who just happens to have super powers. There are a lot of gags to be had from this, but for the most part Hancock is just too much of a jerk for the jokes to really be funny. There is a blurry line between grungy anti-hero, and super-villian, but Hancock blatantly crosses it. He could save the world 100 times over, and I'd still want him locked away.
The second half is where the reviewers get it all wrong. From the trailers, I'm sure you thought that Hancock has a magical change of heart, and suddenly becomes sappier-than-Superman, and spends the rest of the movie helping people until he finally saves the world from some evil menace. Apparently the reviewers thought so too, because that's what they wrote. In actuality, it never becomes anything even close to resembling a typical formulaic super hero movie. What it does become is a bit of a mess, something harder to classify. But I will say that rather than fighting a final boss or having to move mountains to save humanity, it becomes more about Hancock's own past catching up with him. Spoiler alert, but how many superhero movies are resolved by having the hero literally run away from his problems (and, where it's actually a noble thing to do)?
It would be one thing if I'd only read people's blogs & message board posts. But a couple of the reviews I read were from actual papers, including my local paper. To be fair, in the case of the Tennessean, it might have been one of those national reviews that the local paper reprints. I've tried to find that paper again to see if that was the case, but it had already been thrown away. But regardless of where the review came from, someone was paid to write it, someone who didn't even bother to see the movie first. I've rarely seen such a clear-cut case of sloppy journalism. Telling people you saw a movie when you actually didn't, is the same as not doing your research on any article.
This is not a case of "I liked the movie, and reviewers didn't, so the reviewers suck." I have a few of those ready (Ask me about Starship Troopers sometime. Or Fantastic Four.), but this isn't one of them. I actually feel about the same way the reviewers did - lukewarm. Hancock is a decent matinee (though we got charged full price for a matinee due to Regal's new policy... but that's another rant altogether). The movie is flawed and uneven, with some cruel humor and some nonsensical plot twists. Some of the character motivations seem forced, as if the writers were so intent on it playing out a certain way, they didn't consider whether a certain character would actually do such a thing. But these flaws are not quite enough to make it a bad movie, and the good stuff makes up for the bad, IMO. Your mileage may vary.
But it doesn't matter that the reviewers and I agreed overall. The point is, that I actually bought a ticket (paying too much, Damn you Regal... *ahem*) and watched the thing, while the other guys got paid to write a review and didn't watch it. Maybe it's because I'm out of Cymbalta, but I think these reviewers should be shot, then fired, then shot again. Personally, I would love getting paid to watch movies and then write about them, and I know several people who would consider it a dream job. Can't these people see how good they have it? I might not be the best writer in the world, but if I were hired, I promise I would actually see the movies I'm paid to see.
Bottom line: Don't trust the reviews. And while we're at it, boycott Regal until they change the matinee times back.
Dear Tennessean: Next time you don't do your homework, bring a note from your mother.
I read half-a-dozen reviews for this movie, and none of them were very positive. A typical review:
"Hancock starts out as a hilarious anti-hero movie, showing the flipside to the tired comic book formula. Unfortunately, halfway through the movie Hancock finds his morality, and from there it turns into the very type of movie it tried to parody - the standard formulaic super hero movie."
These reviewers are wrong. They're nuts. And worst of all, they're liars - they reviewed the trailer, not the movie. I know this because that's exactly the kind of review I might have written if I'd only watched the trailers. However, this is one of those cases where the actual movie bears very little resemblance to the trailers, which makes the reviewers flat out liars.
Regarding the first half of the movie, the reviewers are fairly close. Granted, they don't say anything you couldn't have found out from the trailers, but they're partly right. The Hancock character is a superhero who isn't very heroic, or rather a drunken slob who just happens to have super powers. There are a lot of gags to be had from this, but for the most part Hancock is just too much of a jerk for the jokes to really be funny. There is a blurry line between grungy anti-hero, and super-villian, but Hancock blatantly crosses it. He could save the world 100 times over, and I'd still want him locked away.
The second half is where the reviewers get it all wrong. From the trailers, I'm sure you thought that Hancock has a magical change of heart, and suddenly becomes sappier-than-Superman, and spends the rest of the movie helping people until he finally saves the world from some evil menace. Apparently the reviewers thought so too, because that's what they wrote. In actuality, it never becomes anything even close to resembling a typical formulaic super hero movie. What it does become is a bit of a mess, something harder to classify. But I will say that rather than fighting a final boss or having to move mountains to save humanity, it becomes more about Hancock's own past catching up with him. Spoiler alert, but how many superhero movies are resolved by having the hero literally run away from his problems (and, where it's actually a noble thing to do)?
It would be one thing if I'd only read people's blogs & message board posts. But a couple of the reviews I read were from actual papers, including my local paper. To be fair, in the case of the Tennessean, it might have been one of those national reviews that the local paper reprints. I've tried to find that paper again to see if that was the case, but it had already been thrown away. But regardless of where the review came from, someone was paid to write it, someone who didn't even bother to see the movie first. I've rarely seen such a clear-cut case of sloppy journalism. Telling people you saw a movie when you actually didn't, is the same as not doing your research on any article.
This is not a case of "I liked the movie, and reviewers didn't, so the reviewers suck." I have a few of those ready (Ask me about Starship Troopers sometime. Or Fantastic Four.), but this isn't one of them. I actually feel about the same way the reviewers did - lukewarm. Hancock is a decent matinee (though we got charged full price for a matinee due to Regal's new policy... but that's another rant altogether). The movie is flawed and uneven, with some cruel humor and some nonsensical plot twists. Some of the character motivations seem forced, as if the writers were so intent on it playing out a certain way, they didn't consider whether a certain character would actually do such a thing. But these flaws are not quite enough to make it a bad movie, and the good stuff makes up for the bad, IMO. Your mileage may vary.
But it doesn't matter that the reviewers and I agreed overall. The point is, that I actually bought a ticket (paying too much, Damn you Regal... *ahem*) and watched the thing, while the other guys got paid to write a review and didn't watch it. Maybe it's because I'm out of Cymbalta, but I think these reviewers should be shot, then fired, then shot again. Personally, I would love getting paid to watch movies and then write about them, and I know several people who would consider it a dream job. Can't these people see how good they have it? I might not be the best writer in the world, but if I were hired, I promise I would actually see the movies I'm paid to see.
Bottom line: Don't trust the reviews. And while we're at it, boycott Regal until they change the matinee times back.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)