3D or Not 3D?

*sigh*  I seem to find myself writing the same blog over and over.  I've already stood up for remakes and sequels, so I think my "live and let live" attitude here is going to be pretty obvious.  Anyway...

A few weeks ago the news broke that Jurassic Park was going to get a 3D re-release.  My brother and my cousin both immediately responded with the standard "OMG-Why?-Has-Hollywood-run-out-of-ideas-and-do-they-only-care-about-money" knee jerk reactions.  These are both very intelligent people and I usually respect their opinions, but come on guys.  Different people go to the movies for different reasons.  Heck, the same person goes to different movies for different reasons.  Sometimes you want to appreciate the film for the piece of art it is.  Other times you want to go on a roller coaster ride. 

Now my brother lives in the magical land of Xanth, where he's never more than twenty minutes from the nearest roller coaster.  He doesn't appreciate what it's like for those of us who no longer have access to a theme park.  If I want to ride a roller coaster, I have two choices.  I can drive a few hours, or I can see a 3D movie at my local IMAX.  (...which is, coincidentally, located right in the vicinity of where a few roller coasters used to be, until they paved paradise and put up a shopping mall.  But I'm not bitter... jerks.)

First off, you didn't see this coming?  Converting old movies to 3D is a trend right now.  You're going to see a lot more before it's over.  Of course they're going to start by looking at a lot of the more popular movies with big special effects.  Plus, 3D televisions are starting to get cheaper and more popular, so people are going to want a lot more 3D blu-rays for their collection, and if you're going to upconvert an old movie anyway, why not give it another run on the big screen?

They're not making you see them.  Steven Spielberg is not going to throw handcuffs on you and drag you to the theater.  Nor is George Lucas going to break into your house and convert all your Star Wars DVDs to 3D. Are you just complaining because Spielberg and Lucas are wasting time that could be spent doing other things?  Maybe... but I doubt it.  These guys have a lot of resources, and can afford to have teams working on several projects at once. 

Or are you just mad because they're going to put something in the theater you don't like?  Look, I appreciate the whole avant-garde film student schtick, but not the whole "everything sucks except for the stuff I find artsy" thing.  It's old.  The internet is full of jaded critics who think it makes them look cooler if they hate everything.  It has been played out.  It is time for people to start gushing about the stuff they like again, and ignore the stuff they hate.  It's a simple fact - you are not the entertainment industry's only target audience.  Sometimes people will release movies that aren't meant for you.  Sometimes music is released that isn't in a genre you like.  If something is released that isn't your style, don't say, "That looks awful."  Just say, "That's not for me, but someone else will probably like it."  It's what mature people do; come join us over at the grownups table.

I think people are confused by the word "converted".  It's true, if you convert your canoe into a bathtub, you'll have a hard time getting it back again.  But movies don't work that way.  Converting a 2D movie into a 3D movie does not mean that the 2D version no longer exists.  They're not "changing" your movie; they're releasing an additional version, one which you are free to ignore.

Now  I will agree, upconverted 3D isn't great yet.  Not long ago we saw Star Wars Episode I in 3D, and it really was a lukewarm experience at best.  Some scenes were better than others, but even the best scenes were like watching it through a Viewmaster.  Yes, people standing in the foreground looked closer to you than the stuff in the background, but really it was just a gimmick that didn't add anything to the movie.

More recently, I saw Wrath of the Titans in 3D.  Now that was a cool experience.  It was filmed in 3D, and it showed; I swear I had more fun at that movie than at any theme park ride I can remember.  Wrath is the kind of movie 3D was made for, and I wouldn't want to see it any other way.  It makes the 3D in Star Wars look pathetic. So yes, I see how upconversion seems like a waste of time when you could be filming new 3D movies.

But I don't begrudge George Lucas for making 3D Star Wars conversions.  Frankly, I'm just glad they're doing them in numerical order - maybe by the time they get to the good ones, they'll have perfected the process.  And that's the point, isn't it?  Technology improves when we use it.  If we just sit on this whole "upconverting" thing, it will never get any better.  But I think it would be really cool if a few decades from now, we could have glasses-free Star Wars movies in 3D that blows Wrath of the Titans away.  But we'll never get there if we don't practice now.

For now, I'll probably skip most 3D upconversions.  I'm just not into it.  It's enough for me to know that the technology is improving, and eventually might yield something worth seeing.

Anyway, the bottom line is the same as it was for the other blogs: If you don't like it, don't go see it.  But please stop whining about it; it's extremely childish, and you're ruining the fun for those who do enjoy seeing them.

The Hunger Games

I enjoyed the Hunger Games, but I didn't love it. Before seeing it, most of the complaints I'd heard about it were that it didn't follow the book. I haven't gotten around to reading the book yet, so that wasn't an issue for me. Personally, I had three main complaints:

1. Shaky-cam. Why hasn't this died yet? It drives me crazy when people don't listen to the public. Anyone old enough to direct a movie knows by now that almost everyone hates shaky-cam. This is not new information. This is not up for debate. It's like escort missions in video games; it's hard to believe the people who make movies/games/etc are still unaware of how many people hate certain elements. Some people get annoyed by shaky-cam because they can't tell what's going on. Some people actually get nauseous. At best, some people have learned to ignore it, but it's not anyone actually looks forward to it. Never has anyone seriously said, "This would have been a better movie if they'd attached the camera to a washing machine." Shaky-cam is no longer edgy and it was never artsy. Its intention is to make you feel like you're part of the action, but all it really does is make it look like the movie was directed by a five-year-old. I can excuse shaky-cam if there's a valid reason for it, specifically "found footage" movies like Cloverfield. But in a regular movie, it's inexcusable.

2. Slow start. It takes a very long time getting to the titular contest. It's justifiable, and it's interesting to learn more about the universe, but for me it was a bit hard to sit through. It felt like the first half of the movie was exposition, and the second half was shaky-cam violence.

3. Kids killing kids. I know this is a weenie complaint, but it's hard for me to watch a movie about kids as young as 12 fighting each other to the death. Obviously there's more violent movies out there, but this movie seems to be trying to fill the Harry Potter/Narnia niche, and the subject matter seems a little grisly for that target audience. However, there's a few saving graces - first off, the tone of the movie makes it clear that the Hunger Games are a very bad thing, and the contest is much reviled by its participants. So it's not like they're actually glorifying the violence.  Also, the deaths themselves are not very graphic, thanks to the aforementioned shaky-cam.  (Of course, if this is their only reason for using shaky-cam, why is it in so many non-violent scenes as well?)

One odd thing that is bothering me is the way this movie is perceived by some of my friends. I have two friends (only one of which has actually seen the movie) who dismissed the Hunger Games as being part of the Twilight genre.

...I just... I don't even... I mean, where do I even begin? Seriously, are we talking about the same movie? Look, I don't want to be rude here, and you're entitled to your opinion. I honestly don't give a flying carp whether or not you liked The Hunger Games, but you can't just say "the Hunger Games is too much like Twilight" without saying something to back that statement up.

Twilight is about a teenage girl who falls in love with a vampire. The Hunger Games is about twenty-four children who are forced to fight to the death in a government-run contest. I know, it's amazing Stephanie Meyer hasn't sued for plagiarism. Sure, there is a small romantic side plot, but it probably doesn't even add up to fifteen ten minutes of the movie. Honestly, there was more romance the The Terminator. Now, I will say that Hunger Games does set up a potential love triangle that will probably get more screen time in the second movie. So I guess you could pre-judge the sequel for being Twilight-esque, assuming you're so sheltered that you think Twilight invented the the love triangle. But even then, we're not discussing the sequel here, or the book trilogy for that matter. We're discussing a single movie called The Hunger Games, and wondering in what universe it shares any similarity with Twilight.

If I had to compare The Hunger Games to another movie, I'd say it mostly reminded me of The Running Man. Dystopian "crapsack world", life-or-death contest watched by a sadistic society, you get the picture. The real difference is the tone; Running Man concentrated on the action, while Hunger Games spends more time on the world-building.

The comparison with Twilight just instantly pisses me off.  I'm trying to analyze myself to see why it's such a berserk button for me.  I think it's because the world really needs more movies like The Hunger Games.  Female-driven stories that aren't about finding the perfect man.  I've noticed this movie is being marketed towards girls (especially after seeing the toys mixed in with Barbie in the toy aisle) and yet it's nothing like your typical chick flick.  I came away from the movie thinking of it as sort of an anti-Twilight, really.  Some people said Twilight set feminism back 30 years; well, more movies like The Hunger Games could be the answer.  That said, I hope Hunger Games does attract a few Twilight fans. Twihards could use a dose of the feminism that's present in The Hunger Games. It's definitely a step in the right direction, anyway.

Anyway, complaints aside, I still enjoyed the movie, and I can't wait to read the book. I hope it makes a lot of money, and the director uses that money to buy a tripod for the sequel.  Btw, if you want to read a more thorough review of The Hunger Games (rather than just a rant against shaky-cam and Twilight comparisons), from someone who's actually read the book, please check out my cousin's blog here.

The Woman In Black

I'm going to keep this relatively spoiler-free, but I really don't think there were any twists worthy of spoilage anyway.  I'm not sure why this movie is getting such good reviews.  It didn't totally suck, but it didn't break any new ground either. Radcliffe does a great job, and the movie is directed well, but overall there's just nothing to write home about.

In The Woman in Black, Daniel Radcliffe plays a financially-troubled lawyer named Arthur Kipps, who is sent to a small town to handle an estate.  Of course, everyone in town knows his presence is going to piss off the local ghost.  But as usual, instead of actually telling Kipps why they hate him, they just glare at him through windows and try to thwart his attempts to find a place to stay.  Granted, Kipps wouldn't have believed them if they had been honest, but that's not the point.  What bothers me the artificial tension generated by doling out exposition one morsel at a time.  If this many townsfolk want him to leave town that badly, it seems like at least one of them would consider confronting him with the truth, even if they risk looking crazy.  The reason they don't has nothing to do with the plot, but rather the writer's attempts to create drama through careful dispersal of information. 

Anyway, there's nothing here you haven't seen before.  As a horror movie, it's more spooky than scary.  Several times you see the titular shadowy spirit floating around behind Kipps, almost to the point where you get used to her.  It has a lot of sudden surprises, with things jumping out unexpectedly.  If you've seen more than three scary movies in your life, you will always know when something is about to happen.  I mean, it's usually so obvious that they could have flashed "Jump Scare Coming" on the screen.  You'll see Radcliffe step back, leaving 75% of the screen free to make room for whatever is about to appear.  The soundtrack will then get quiet so as not to interfere with the upcoming Scare Chord.  You won't necessarily know what was about to jump out and yell "Boo", but you will know in plenty of time that something is coming.

To me, ghost movies often seem like they're easy to write, because the writers never seem to think much about the ghost's motivation.  Everything they do is designed to scare the audience more than the characters.  They will often jump out at times that don't make sense plot-wise, and expend energy appearing in the background where none of the characters actually see them.  They'll knock on doors and rattle knobs even though they've had no problem passing through walls in other scenes.  At times they act like mindless animals, tormenting the protagonists who are trying to help the ghosts by laying their bones to rest.  They're powerful enough to kill the characters whenever they want, but they prefer to play with their food instead. 

Anyway, I wouldn't call the movie a complete waste of time, but I really can't think of anything good to say about it.  If you've already seen a ghost movie this lifetime, then you've pretty much seen this one.  One warning to the sensitive - this movie is cruel to children.  Most of the victims in this movie are young kids, so if that sort of thing bothers you, that's one more reason to give this one a pass.

The Walking Dead

I recently read the Walking Dead comic book series.  I'd already watched the first season on TV, and a little of the second.  Several of my friends talked me into reading the comics, so I could see where the show deviated from the source material and whatnot.  I read the entire series and I'm now caught up to the current month.  I don't know if I'm going to keep reading it, though.  For one thing, I'm at a great stopping point, where I can just say "...and they lived happily ever after" rather then see how things get screwed up this time.  For another thing, I don't really like reading comics month-to-month.  A single issue of a comic is just too short, and I don't remember from one month to the next what's happening.  I'd rather wait until there's about 25 more issues, so I don't have to read it as "story McNuggets." 
 
Anyway, Walking Dead is a pretty decent comic series, though it's not the type of story I generally like.  I'm told that when it first came out, the writer said he didn't like the way zombie movies end.  The survivors always get into a helicopter or a boat, and ride off into the sunset... but you never know what happens next.  It's a world filled with zombies; where are they going to go?  So he made the comic intending to be a long-running series (it's on issue 90-something right now, with no signs of stopping), so it would cover all the day-to-day stuff: where they go for safety, how they keep finding food, and so on.

That's where the really shines, in my opinion.  They cover all the little details, the stuff you rarely see in a two-hour movie.  The longevity also gives it drama as well - they have to worry about changing weather, the longevity of canned goods, looting buildings that have already been picked clean, pregnancy, relationships, mental stability, and so on.  The movies usually all take place right after the initial event, so they don't get into these long-term problems.

The downside?  Well, it's a cruel world with very few pick-me-ups, and after a while that gets pretty depressing.  It's hard to really look forward to reading a comic where only bad things happen.  It has a large revolving cast, with people constantly getting killed off while others are introduced.  Just like in the zombie movies, no one is safe, not even the major characters.  I know many people regard this type of writing as a refreshing change of pace, but you know my feelings on downer endings.  I generally give horror a pass, zombie stories doubly so, because tragedy is an important part of the genre.  But that doesn't make it fun to read.  Some of the more significant deaths still haunt me 40 issues later.  It's no secret that the title doesn't just refer to the zombies, but to the main characters themselves (in fact, it kind of beats you over the head with it).  All the survivors are living on borrowed time.  It never seems like they're actually working toward something, except maybe a safe place to stay for a few months.  This is not a story about humans working against all odds towards ridding the world of a zombie infestation.  This is a story of the last gasps of civilization, of how the final humans struggled to postpone their deaths for a few months.

So why did I keep reading it?  Well, that just shows how well it's written.  A true test of an author is whether they can keep you interested in a type of story that generally turns you off.  There are no real "good guys" in the series.  The main characters are the heroes only because those are the characters the story focuses on.  They sometimes do selfless things, but in truth, everyone is just out to protect their own families and friends.  Some of them are idealistic at first, but that gets beaten out of them eventually.  The zombies are not the biggest obstacles in the series, and they quite often fade into the background.  Most of the story's conflict comes from other live humans.  It's a world where only the strongest survive, and that tends to breed a lot of jerks.

I've been a little obsessed with sexism in comics recently, and I'm happy to say that I don't see a lot in the Walking Dead.  Two of the most competent characters in the series are female, and I see very little gender disparity.  Both sexes get killed and maimed in relatively equal numbers.  Both sexes have strong characters, weak characters, and every personality type in between.  Others may disagree, but I don't see any evidence that the author even considers gender a factor in deciding who has the most skills or who gets killed next.  Now, about midway through the series, there was one particular rape/torture scene that made a lot of people uncomfortable.  It caused an uproar in their letters column, and they probably lost a few readers at that point.  I can't say whether this plotline was really needed, though it build the villain up to be that much more despicable.  When the victim finally got her revenge a few issues later, it was quite satisfying, though it didn't really make up for the initial crime.  That entire storyline is considered by some to be a low point in the series (and not just because of the controversy... one dramatic scene comes off so silly it's listed on the TVTropes "Narm" page), but the series does get better after that.

Anyway, whether I continue to read it or not, I'm glad I read what I have so far.  Now, regarding the TV series... it's not bad.  I really enjoyed the first season, and I like the way it goes off in so many different directions from the comic.  It's similar enough to where you say, "wow, that's good casting for that character", but it's different enough that reading the comic won't give away what happens next (or vice versa).  Like a lot of people, I did get bored during their stay at the farmhouse in the second season, and only time will tell if I start watching again.  (I'm also a little miffed that they fired Frank Darabont.) 

Really, TV series or comic, you won't go wrong to give either one a try.

Update 1/12/2012; Some Spoilers:

Okay, I was thinking it over, and there actually was one additional reason I might not return to the comic.  It's because everybody's fair game.  There's a few characters I really like, and I know they're going to die sooner or later.  It might be 100 issues from now, when sales start to falter and the writer decides he needs to shake things up a little.  But it will happen.  Heck, I'm an issue or two behind by now, so it might have already happened.  And this isn't like Marvel and DC, where death is only temporary.  But as long as I stop reading now, they'll live forever.

I know that sounds silly.  I mean, I can't just stop reading/watching all fiction out of the fear that characters will die.  But I don't look at a long-running ongoing series as "art" the same way I would with a stand-alone movie or novel.  In a novel, everything happens for a reason.  Usually the entire story is plotted out from the beginning.  Yes, the author comes up with new ideas as the story comes along, and things might not end up playing out like the author originally intended.  But there's still time before publishing to go back and edit the early chapters to make sure they're more in sync with the later ones.  The point is, novels and movies are subject to Chekhov's Gun.  Superfluous details are kept to a minimum, every death has a point, and the entire package can be viewed as a piece of art.

An ongoing TV or comic book series doesn't work the same way.  Individual episodes (or issues) might, and often even an entire TV season (or comic book story arc) will follow a novel's structure.  But very rarely will issue 94 of a comic book series feature a twist that was foreshadowed in issue 3.  The writer (if it's even the same writer by then) might wish he could go back and stick a detail into an earlier issue, but it's way too late by then.  No, series fiction just sort of plods along like life, changing with the seasons, and only the most recent events tend to really matter.  In a way, that makes them more realistic than stand-alone stories, because the patterns are less predictable.

What am I missing here... oh, yes, a point.  My point is, while a series does have some advantages over novels and movies, they are less of an "art" in my mind.  The series gets handed to different writers and artists after a while, and it becomes a communal storytelling experience, like that flashlight game you play around the campfire.  And enjoyable experience, sure, but nothing I'd stick in a museum.  Even if it keeps the same writer throughout, after a while he loses his original vision, and quality goes downhill.  Sometimes they'll keep it going long after they've run out of ideas.  This is unfortunate because the same writer might still be capable of doing something great on a fresh project.  Instead he wastes those ideas by trying to fit them into his existing universe, where they don't work quite as well.  And then his work becomes something so rotten that humanity itself is infected, causing the entire human race to die off, leaving penguins to rule the Earth.  Sorry, I was seeing if you were still listening.

In any event, I wouldn't say that the Walking Dead comic is getting stagnant quite yet, and the author probably still has a lot of great twists up his sleeve.  But so far the pattern has been "Find a safe place, make the safe place better, get betrayed by humans, find a new safe place" over and over.  It was fun the first few times, but I need a break.  I'm going to go read something else now, and let the Walking Dead survivors enjoy their current safe place.

Also, I wanted to revisit my paragraph on sexism, and clarify that my praises only apply to the comic book.  The TV series keeps missing the mark on the gender equality front.  Most of the women on the show are weepy complainers.  It's particularly irksome because one of them, Andrea, is one of the most capable characters in the comic.  On the show, she's whiny and suicidal.  But some things are actually handled better in the TV series.  The affair between Shane and Lori actually plays out much better on TV, IMO.  Shane was killed off very early in the comic, and his presence on the show almost works like the butterfly effect - that one little change makes the entire plot play out in different directions.  I like to think of the comic and the TV show as existing in the same continuity, until Shane's death splinters the timeline.  It's almost like one of Marvel's "What If" comics; you could call the show, "What if Shane had never been shot?"

Do Transporters Kill You And Copy You?

Every once in a while, I come across a website that talks about the way Star Trek (and some other misc sci-fi) transporters work. They often conclude that transporters actually work by disintegrating you, then making an exact copy at the destination. Which of course brings up a thousand other questions. If it were so easy to copy a person, why would people have to die at all? Why not just backup all your crew members every day like you do with any other data? Even disease, lost limbs, etc, could be cured through transporter use. Why kill the original crew member? Why not just send down a copy, have him complete the mission, then disintegrate him, without ever disintegrating the original on the ship?

Here's my opinion. Mind you, this explanation is silly and unscientific, but no more so than most Star Trek technology. Basically, in the Star Trek universe, they have discovered how to convert matter into energy and vice versa. The reason they aren't killing you is because it's the same energy particles being converted back into matter. So first the transporter changes you into energy particles, atom by atom. Then those particles are shot to another location (much like a phaser shoots a beam of energy), then those same particles are converted back into matter, atom by atom. If someone simply recorded your transporter pattern and made another you using any old energy, that would be a copy. But since it's the same particles being temporarily transformed from one state to another and back, it's still you.

This is supported a little bit by the fact that you can't beam through shields. You can still send data through shields; enemy ships often communicate with each other. If a transporter pattern were just normal data, you could send it to the other ship just like you send a communication signal. You can't shoot phasers through shields either. So, maybe transporters work more like phasers than communicators, in that they fire energy rather than just data.

In a few episodes, the crew members mention experiences they've had during transport. There was an early TNG episode where they did a "near-warp tranpsort", and a crew member mentioned feeling like they were in a nearby wall for a second. A much later episode had Barclay wrestling with monsters in the transporter stream. While these are some of the sillier examples of the way the writers have abused the technology, they do support the idea that the energy particles themselves are still alive and retain some aspect of the matter converted.

Also, they often beam straight to a remote location (rather than another transporter pad). To me, this means that when they start the conversion process, the conversion back is inevitable. Meaning, your body is turned into energy particles that are only meant to stay energy particles for a few seconds before they turn back. So it is your actual pattern being sent across space, not just data waiting to be reconverted from random energy particles at the destination.

Admittedly, one thing that doesn't fit is Thomas Riker. If they'd established that one was "real" and one was a copy, I'd be fine. But they seem to imply that both are 100% Riker. When they boosted the signal that split his pattern, they were adding non-Riker particles to the Riker particles, which means that either one is made from pure non-Riker energy, or each of them is now only x% Riker. Though perhaps, every time someone is transported, a few atoms are lost and replaced with those from random energy. But since your body replaces cells all the time anyway, it's no big loss. So right after the accident, both Rikers were only 50% Riker (more or less) for a while. But ever since then their bodies have been replacing their own skin cells, so the now each of them is closer to being 100% real.

Again, I admit this is all Insane Troll Logic. But to me it makes more sense than the Federation routinely using a system that involves killing people and copying them.

Give Me A Happy Ending...

We recently slogged through Torchwood: Miracle Day. For those who don't know, Torchwood is a depressingly pessimistic spin-off of Doctor Who.  DW has two spin-offs: The Sarah Jane Adventures is pretty much a children's show, that showcases the whimsical side of the Whoniverse.  Meanwhile, Torchwood is a more adult-oriented program with much darker themes. While Sarah Jane is off fighting rubber-suited space vultures, Torchwood's Jack Harkness generally encounters Baraka-like Weevils and other creatures you usually only see in horror movies.

But it's not the creatures Jack faces, but his decisions on how to deal with them that really make the show. Jack constantly finds himself stuck in "You must torture this puppy to death to save the Earth" type situations. His ability to make these difficult decisions is one of the character's defining characteristics. I really enjoyed the first season of Torchwood, but as the show went on, it just got more and more depressing. I don't want to post any spoilers here, but it seems like whenever they had the choice of either doing a clever plot twist or doing something cruel, and they always choose cruel. Part of me wants to declare that Miracle Day was the last straw, and declare I'm done with Torchwood.  But I really like Jack Harkness, and I'll probably still watch whatever sadistic plotline they put him in next.

Honestly, I just don't like sad endings. To me, this is what a story is, at its core: Someone is presented with a challenge, then overcomes it.  As far as I'm concerned, this is THE formula for writing. This is how the writer knows where to begin the story, where to put the rising action, the climax, the falling action, and so on. Without that, it's not a story, it's just a bunch of stuff that happens.

The writer's job is to come up with a difficult and interesting challenge, one worthy of the audience's time. The writer's next job is to come up with a solution to the challenge. If the writer succeeds on creating a challenge but fails on the solution, then they've only done half the work. It's like a joke without a punchline. If the hero of the story doesn't succeed, then it's like the writer is holding up a sign that says, "I suck at writing. I don't know the first thing about story structure. I managed to get as far as constructing a challenge, but I was too stupid to come up with a solution.  Pity me, criticize me, or instruct me; but under no circumstances bother to watch or read anything I have written. "

Oooh! But dark is edgy! It's new, it's hip, it's a cool twist! Give me a break. We've had tragedies since the dawn of writing.  Every time someone brings up how much they love the modern Battlestar Galactica, I end up having the same conversation. I tried to watch the show. I watched most of the first season, and while it was well-written, it was just too depressing. "But that's the beauty of it," they say. "Finally a show that doesn't stick to the super-happy Hollywood formula, where all problems are solved every episode."

I don't know, twenty years ago I might have agreed with that. When I was in high school, I'll admit I did go through a phase where I was sick of everything always having a happy ending. An entire childhood of nothing but happy endings made me want something different. But then I saw too many tragedies.

Which doesn't mean there was suddenly a rush of sad movies during that time. It's more likely that I expanded my own horizons. I got into horror movies. I started watching more anime instead of US cartoons. I watched Twilight Zone and Outer Limits, which featured often-tragic twist endings.  For a while I really got into the darker side of storytelling.  Heck, I still like these things when they're well-written.  It's when they're depressing for no reason that it really gets my hackles up.

Aliens had a somewhat happy ending. Sure, most of the characters died, but I liked the ones who lived. I remember wishing it would have another sequel, but even if it didn't, I was satisfied with how things had turned out. Then they had to screw it up with Alien 3. The entire movie, things just got more and more depressing for Ripley... until she died.  After Ripley found out she was hosting an alien embryo, we spent half the movie wondering how she was going to get out of it.  After all, no one had had successfully survived an alien pregnancy yet, so how is she going to do it?  That's the essence of drama - knowing the character is doomed.  A good author lets you think this every time, but then throws in a twist that allows the character to escape.  You know what would have been a great twist for Alien 3?  Finding a last-minute way to let Ripley survive.  You know what was a boring cop-out that showed the full extent of the author's lack of writing ability?  The way it really ended.

Or how about Candyman? I like horror movies, but I prefer the ones where the main character survives. It's their reward for all the hardships they go through in the movie. Otherwise, what's the point? Why did you show us this? So in Candyman, bad things just keep happening to the main character, things just keep getting worse and worse for her until the movie's climax - that would be the perfect time for her to turn it around, right? After all, that's what a story is, showing how someone gets over hardships, right? Nope, she dies. That's not entertainment. That's locking someone in a cage and poking them with a stick until you finally get bored and shoot them. Yes, tragedies have existed since the old Greek plays, but that doesn't they're always fun to watch today. Remember, those were the same people who invented the "Hand of God" and other silliness. Writing is supposed to have evolved since then.

And then there's The Mist, but I've already covered that one.  To sum up, a great movie was ruined by a silly punchline, turning the last two hours of your life into a sick joke.  I still love Frank Darabont, but he owes me for that one.

Okay, obviously I'm in the minority on this one, since depressing shows are so popular. Perhaps there's more sociopaths than there used to be, and they just like to watch characters suffer. Or maybe it's easier to count your own blessings when you're watching someone who's worse off than you are.  "It's more realistic," they say.  But I'm not so much into realism. When I watch TV/movies, it's escapism.  If I was into realism, I wouldn't watch movies about dragons and robots, I'd watch movies about applying for a home loan or getting an oil change.

I still consider Twilight Zone and Outer Limits to be top-notch fiction, because those tragedies at least show some clever writing.  A good writer can get away with a downer ending. There are times when that's the only way a story really can end. Sometimes that's the entire point of the story, and it would lose impact for it to end any other way. In general, only really good writers can get away with it. So unless your last name is Serling or Orwell, you're really just being pretentious. In my opinion, writing a sad ending is like wearing a T-shirt that says "I'm Awesome"... if you were truly awesome, you wouldn't need the T-shirt. And if you were actually a good writer, you wouldn't feel the need to stoop to "edgy".  Pessimistic authors are the whiny emo gothboys of the writing world.

So yeah, I'm a pretty weird human. I like sequels and remakes, I don't mind hype, I actually like the Star Wars prequels, and I now I reveal I don't like tragedies.  Perhaps I'm not anybody's target audience, but I have to believe I'm not the only one who feels this way.  The bottom line is, a sad ending is okay if the story demands it, but too many writers are writing sad endings for the wrong reasons.

Sequels

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!

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:

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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:

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.