Thursday, July 28, 2005
Movie tie-ins and a Very Late, Half-Assed Review
I've always loved going out and digging through the used section at video game stores. There's been very few games that made me want ot rush right out and shell out $50 to play it right away. I never trade in good games because they're still fun no matter how dated the graphics are. I still play X-Wing from time to time and every so often, I break out the old NES.
The other day I picked up Spider-Man 2 for PS2 for ten bucks. Usually I stay away from movie tie-in games because most of them suck. Every so often you get a Goldeneye, but it's rare. The first Spider-Man tie-in had it's issues, like being able to swing from a web even though you're 50 feet above the tallest building. (What is it attached to?) I think the problem is that game design and movie production don't work at the same speeds. By the time a movie's look is established, they're half done. Then the game designers have to take that look and build a game. It's not enough time to do it right.
But this one was actually a lot of fun. It's probably because it's a sequel, and the designers could build off of their original game. You have total control over Spidey, from web slinging to wall crawling. If there isn't a building to attach to, you don't swing. You are able to explore Manhattan fully. I actually felt a bit of vertigo when I was sitting on top of the spire on the Empire State Building. I haven't even gotten to the missions yet. I've just been swinging around beating up muggers and carjackers.
Anyway, the graphics are passable, but not terrific. That's fine by me. Sometimes I think that game designers spend way too much time making a game look good, and not enough time making it play good. I love great graphics as much as the next guy, but if a game isn't fun to play, then graphics don't mean shit. Good writing, good level planning, and most importantly, good control are much more vital to whether a game sucks or not. Who wants to pay 50 bucks for a beautiful piece of shit? It's the same reason the US basketball team got their asses handed to them at the '04 Olympics. They didn't stick to fundementals.
So, bottom line, well worth the $10. Would I have paid $50? Probably not. Then again, I almost never pay $50.
The other day I picked up Spider-Man 2 for PS2 for ten bucks. Usually I stay away from movie tie-in games because most of them suck. Every so often you get a Goldeneye, but it's rare. The first Spider-Man tie-in had it's issues, like being able to swing from a web even though you're 50 feet above the tallest building. (What is it attached to?) I think the problem is that game design and movie production don't work at the same speeds. By the time a movie's look is established, they're half done. Then the game designers have to take that look and build a game. It's not enough time to do it right.
But this one was actually a lot of fun. It's probably because it's a sequel, and the designers could build off of their original game. You have total control over Spidey, from web slinging to wall crawling. If there isn't a building to attach to, you don't swing. You are able to explore Manhattan fully. I actually felt a bit of vertigo when I was sitting on top of the spire on the Empire State Building. I haven't even gotten to the missions yet. I've just been swinging around beating up muggers and carjackers.
Anyway, the graphics are passable, but not terrific. That's fine by me. Sometimes I think that game designers spend way too much time making a game look good, and not enough time making it play good. I love great graphics as much as the next guy, but if a game isn't fun to play, then graphics don't mean shit. Good writing, good level planning, and most importantly, good control are much more vital to whether a game sucks or not. Who wants to pay 50 bucks for a beautiful piece of shit? It's the same reason the US basketball team got their asses handed to them at the '04 Olympics. They didn't stick to fundementals.
So, bottom line, well worth the $10. Would I have paid $50? Probably not. Then again, I almost never pay $50.
Wednesday, July 27, 2005
BRAINS!
The IMDb has a poll every day about movies. Today it was "What's you favorite zombie movie?"
They have a list:
Night of the Living Dead
Dawn of the Dead (1978)
Day of the Dead
Land of the Dead
Dawn of the Dead (2004)
Resident Evil
House of the Dead
Zombi 2
Evil Dead
28 Days Later
Shaun of the Dead
Return of the Living Dead
White Zombie
I Walked with a Zombie
The Gates of Hell
The Beyond
Dead Alive
Other
Now, there were two films here that I thought were missing. The first was Tom Savini's Remake of Night of the Living Dead (1990). I really liked this remake. People keep going on about the Dawn of the Dead remake, which was excellent, but this one is quite good in it's own right.
The other is The Serpent and the Rainbow. Not a zombie movie in the George Romero sense, but neither is 28 Days Later. It's actualy about zombies in the original sense, the Voodoo tradition.
Anyway, what do you think of these and do you think they belong on the list?
They have a list:
Night of the Living Dead
Dawn of the Dead (1978)
Day of the Dead
Land of the Dead
Dawn of the Dead (2004)
Resident Evil
House of the Dead
Zombi 2
Evil Dead
28 Days Later
Shaun of the Dead
Return of the Living Dead
White Zombie
I Walked with a Zombie
The Gates of Hell
The Beyond
Dead Alive
Other
Now, there were two films here that I thought were missing. The first was Tom Savini's Remake of Night of the Living Dead (1990). I really liked this remake. People keep going on about the Dawn of the Dead remake, which was excellent, but this one is quite good in it's own right.
The other is The Serpent and the Rainbow. Not a zombie movie in the George Romero sense, but neither is 28 Days Later. It's actualy about zombies in the original sense, the Voodoo tradition.
Anyway, what do you think of these and do you think they belong on the list?
Propeller necks
Last Friday I had the misfortune to be in the press pool at a politcal rally for Doug Forrester, who is currently the republican candidate for governor of New Jersey. The Big Dick (Cheney) was the guest of honor, and I spent several hoursfighting to stay awake by imagining what goes through the heads of the Secret Service agents when are standing there looking menacing. (The most popular suggestion was "I feel pretty, oh so pretty...)
It was the most boring rally I have ever been to. Anyway, the one thing I noticed was that there were an awful lot of bowties there. Why? Why do republicans wear bowties? It looks ridiculous. I don't get it. There was one poor bastard at the check-in desk wearing a tan suit and a red bow tie. Remind you of anyone? Here's a hint.
It amazes me that these goofy bastards run everything.
It was the most boring rally I have ever been to. Anyway, the one thing I noticed was that there were an awful lot of bowties there. Why? Why do republicans wear bowties? It looks ridiculous. I don't get it. There was one poor bastard at the check-in desk wearing a tan suit and a red bow tie. Remind you of anyone? Here's a hint.
It amazes me that these goofy bastards run everything.
Paging Dr. Buzzkill. Dr. Buzzkill...
Sorry I haven't been around for the last few days. I've been out of the office, and my freaking apartment's been too hot to run the damn computer. Okay, here's a few thoughts for my friend and colleague Fogelmatrix:
1) People who live on the East Coast are the biggest self-centered, egotistical, arrogant, cock-sucking fucktards in the world.
Well, you've obviously never been to LA. I think the problem here is that you are judging the entire Eastern seaboard based on the people in one small town in Minnesota. Simple fact of the matter is that people from all over this country pretty much suck. People suck all over the world. There are plenty of good people, but they are grossly outnumbered by assholes. It's not just that the assholes are generally bad either. It's just that most of them are so wrapped up in their own shit that they ignore how they affect others.
a) I no longer want to hear about how badly the Franch treat Americans. It is because of East Coast people that we are viewed as retards by the rest of the world
The French don't really hate us. It's mainly people in Paris and other high tourism areas, and I don't blame them. Personally, I hate tourists more than anything. They're loud, obnoxious and crass. The demand everything and want everything RIGHT NOW. They want to find America in non-American places. They go to other countries and expect everyone to speak English, regardless of how far that country may be from the English speaking parts of the world.
So, droves of Americans flock to Paris and annoy the shit out of the locals. They say things like “We saved your ass in WWII,” fully confident in their “superiority” and fully ignorant of the fact that the French saved our asses in the Revolutionary War. We piss of the locals, and the locals are rude to us. We go back to the US and start complaining about how rude the French were. Then people here start thinking, “Hey, we saved their asses in WWII, those ungrateful French bastards!” and the next thing you know we have “freedom fries.”
b) Why do East Coasters feel the need to pass me and then cut me off? You only got ONE CAR AHEAD OF WHERE YOU WERE!!!!!!!!!!!!! How much time did that really save you?
I have a 45 minute commute in the morning, so you're preaching to the choir. However, if you think East Coast drivers are bad, you should go to Texas. Simple fact is, everyone thinks that they are a good driver. Since that can't possibly be true, logic suggests that we are all fooling ourselves. Assholes everywhere, my friend, too wrapped up in their own shit.
2) I hate people.
No, really?
3) Hollywood has no clue what it is doing anymore.
a) Just admit it. None of you have any intelligence. None of you have any interesting ideas.
Hollywood has never had any idea what they were doing. This is the same place that thought it would be a good idea to cast John Wayne as Genghis Khan. They've been making crap movies for generations. The only reason they're recycling old TV shows so much is because they've had so much success with it. Admittedly, some of them are good flicks. Mission: Impossible was good, so was the Addams Family. Recycling old TV shows isn't exactly a bad thing either. Battlestar Galactica is a great show. Best Sci-Fi show on TV, in fact.
The reason that movies seem like they are getting worse is because we've forgotten about all the bad movies that have come before. Remember Porky's Revenge? Stewardess School? Police Academy 12? The only reason we know about the current batch of bad movies is because we see commercials on TV.
b) To the person that is planning on doing a CG version of the Smurfs. Kill yourself.
There's also a CG version of Popeye. The only reason I know that is because I have a 4-year-old niece. It will probably go straight to video. The only reason you need to worry about it is if you become a parent. If that happens, you have bigger worries, like Barbie in Swan Lake or Barney: Live in New York. The thing is, when it comes to TV and movies, nothing, and I mean nothing, is sacred.
c) All the god-damned people that buy shit like Star, People, US weekly, and any other gossip magazine need to choke themselves to death on Katie Holmes bloodied tampon. Because of you, I need to hear about Tom Cruises love life every nanosecond of every day. Because of you there are TV shows that "makeover" people with plastic surgery to make them look like movie stars.
Well, I managed to get through the entire Tom Cruise midlife crisis without hearing hardly anything about it. I say, if people want to mutilate their bodies on fucked up plastic surgery shows, let 'em. If people want to watch fucked up plastic surgery shows, let 'em. Personally, I suggest changing channels. Stop watching E! and VH1 and you'll be okay. Trust me. Stay away from the light, Carol Anne.
3) This country is collapsing around us.
a) Don't try to argue this by telling me that the crime rate is down and the cost of living is rising and the economy is recovering and all that other bullshit. This country is a pathetic mess that is no more concerned about "moral" values than what I had for dinner. Don't tell me about your moral values when we as a country are more concerned about other countries than our own.
When exactly was this a moral country? When was this country in a better state than we are now? When were the good ol' days that I've heard so much about?
I don't think that the country is collapsing. I think the leadership is full of shit, preaching about morality and then waging wars that we didn't need to fight based on bullshit intelligence and boldface lies, all the while outing CIA spies for political gain and then covering up who did it, while promising to fire that person if they ever knew who did it and then going back on your word when it turns out to be your closest advisor. (Whew!)
As for being more concerned about other countries, the United States seems to be the least concerned about the affairs of other countries, at least when it comes to the industrialized nations. People will argue that the US gives more money and aid to other countries than any other nation in the world. That's just because we have more money than everyone else. Nothing we do (at least nothing our government does) is ever done without it being in American interests. Not a damn thing.
1) People who live on the East Coast are the biggest self-centered, egotistical, arrogant, cock-sucking fucktards in the world.
Well, you've obviously never been to LA. I think the problem here is that you are judging the entire Eastern seaboard based on the people in one small town in Minnesota. Simple fact of the matter is that people from all over this country pretty much suck. People suck all over the world. There are plenty of good people, but they are grossly outnumbered by assholes. It's not just that the assholes are generally bad either. It's just that most of them are so wrapped up in their own shit that they ignore how they affect others.
a) I no longer want to hear about how badly the Franch treat Americans. It is because of East Coast people that we are viewed as retards by the rest of the world
The French don't really hate us. It's mainly people in Paris and other high tourism areas, and I don't blame them. Personally, I hate tourists more than anything. They're loud, obnoxious and crass. The demand everything and want everything RIGHT NOW. They want to find America in non-American places. They go to other countries and expect everyone to speak English, regardless of how far that country may be from the English speaking parts of the world.
So, droves of Americans flock to Paris and annoy the shit out of the locals. They say things like “We saved your ass in WWII,” fully confident in their “superiority” and fully ignorant of the fact that the French saved our asses in the Revolutionary War. We piss of the locals, and the locals are rude to us. We go back to the US and start complaining about how rude the French were. Then people here start thinking, “Hey, we saved their asses in WWII, those ungrateful French bastards!” and the next thing you know we have “freedom fries.”
b) Why do East Coasters feel the need to pass me and then cut me off? You only got ONE CAR AHEAD OF WHERE YOU WERE!!!!!!!!!!!!! How much time did that really save you?
I have a 45 minute commute in the morning, so you're preaching to the choir. However, if you think East Coast drivers are bad, you should go to Texas. Simple fact is, everyone thinks that they are a good driver. Since that can't possibly be true, logic suggests that we are all fooling ourselves. Assholes everywhere, my friend, too wrapped up in their own shit.
2) I hate people.
No, really?
3) Hollywood has no clue what it is doing anymore.
a) Just admit it. None of you have any intelligence. None of you have any interesting ideas.
Hollywood has never had any idea what they were doing. This is the same place that thought it would be a good idea to cast John Wayne as Genghis Khan. They've been making crap movies for generations. The only reason they're recycling old TV shows so much is because they've had so much success with it. Admittedly, some of them are good flicks. Mission: Impossible was good, so was the Addams Family. Recycling old TV shows isn't exactly a bad thing either. Battlestar Galactica is a great show. Best Sci-Fi show on TV, in fact.
The reason that movies seem like they are getting worse is because we've forgotten about all the bad movies that have come before. Remember Porky's Revenge? Stewardess School? Police Academy 12? The only reason we know about the current batch of bad movies is because we see commercials on TV.
b) To the person that is planning on doing a CG version of the Smurfs. Kill yourself.
There's also a CG version of Popeye. The only reason I know that is because I have a 4-year-old niece. It will probably go straight to video. The only reason you need to worry about it is if you become a parent. If that happens, you have bigger worries, like Barbie in Swan Lake or Barney: Live in New York. The thing is, when it comes to TV and movies, nothing, and I mean nothing, is sacred.
c) All the god-damned people that buy shit like Star, People, US weekly, and any other gossip magazine need to choke themselves to death on Katie Holmes bloodied tampon. Because of you, I need to hear about Tom Cruises love life every nanosecond of every day. Because of you there are TV shows that "makeover" people with plastic surgery to make them look like movie stars.
Well, I managed to get through the entire Tom Cruise midlife crisis without hearing hardly anything about it. I say, if people want to mutilate their bodies on fucked up plastic surgery shows, let 'em. If people want to watch fucked up plastic surgery shows, let 'em. Personally, I suggest changing channels. Stop watching E! and VH1 and you'll be okay. Trust me. Stay away from the light, Carol Anne.
3) This country is collapsing around us.
a) Don't try to argue this by telling me that the crime rate is down and the cost of living is rising and the economy is recovering and all that other bullshit. This country is a pathetic mess that is no more concerned about "moral" values than what I had for dinner. Don't tell me about your moral values when we as a country are more concerned about other countries than our own.
When exactly was this a moral country? When was this country in a better state than we are now? When were the good ol' days that I've heard so much about?
I don't think that the country is collapsing. I think the leadership is full of shit, preaching about morality and then waging wars that we didn't need to fight based on bullshit intelligence and boldface lies, all the while outing CIA spies for political gain and then covering up who did it, while promising to fire that person if they ever knew who did it and then going back on your word when it turns out to be your closest advisor. (Whew!)
As for being more concerned about other countries, the United States seems to be the least concerned about the affairs of other countries, at least when it comes to the industrialized nations. People will argue that the US gives more money and aid to other countries than any other nation in the world. That's just because we have more money than everyone else. Nothing we do (at least nothing our government does) is ever done without it being in American interests. Not a damn thing.
Monday, July 25, 2005
Movies That Didn't Need to Be Made
All right Gentlemen, our conversation draught is over. I want to open the artery of dialogue with this topic.
It feels like each summer we get more of the flms, "that shouldn't have been made". I'm not talking about just bad movies, I'm talking about the ones that serve no purpose.
I am about to buck the trend of ever critic, but the new Willy Wonka was one of those movie for me. I didn't hate it and I didn't love it. It mildly amused me for two hours, but you know what? So would the 1970's version, but for different reason.
First Off Willy
Aside from my Father, Gene Wilder was my first introduction to sarcasm. When Violet Beuregard is knuckle deep into her nose looking for another golden ticket and says, "spitting is a dirty habit" and Wilder volleys back in his best deadpan "I know a worse one". That's a line that transcends the generations. He was clever. He also had a certain bitterness and needed to open up his factory to help him rediscover his lost child.
Depp...was unique. He had...some very tough lines to deliver...and he did that...strangely. Right...Listen, I'm not against the wierd. I thgought Capt. Jack Sparrow was brilliant and fun. Willy Wonka, just creepy. But not Edward Scissorhands creepy. More, 21st century Michael Jackson creepy. And his lines just weren't as clever as Wilder's lines were. Depp was a child in a man's body. I feel bad for him. There's nothing worse than being that out of step with reality. I didn't feel good about the ending.
Oompa Loompas
First off, big props to Deep Roy. He did very well. Did not like the songs though. The original songs were about teaching morality. These songs were focused more on emulating a certain music style and not giving proper homage to the sin at hand.
Effects
2005 version. Our movies may be getting less original. But dam, they look so good.
Help me? I'm on the fence!
It feels like each summer we get more of the flms, "that shouldn't have been made". I'm not talking about just bad movies, I'm talking about the ones that serve no purpose.
I am about to buck the trend of ever critic, but the new Willy Wonka was one of those movie for me. I didn't hate it and I didn't love it. It mildly amused me for two hours, but you know what? So would the 1970's version, but for different reason.
First Off Willy
Aside from my Father, Gene Wilder was my first introduction to sarcasm. When Violet Beuregard is knuckle deep into her nose looking for another golden ticket and says, "spitting is a dirty habit" and Wilder volleys back in his best deadpan "I know a worse one". That's a line that transcends the generations. He was clever. He also had a certain bitterness and needed to open up his factory to help him rediscover his lost child.
Depp...was unique. He had...some very tough lines to deliver...and he did that...strangely. Right...Listen, I'm not against the wierd. I thgought Capt. Jack Sparrow was brilliant and fun. Willy Wonka, just creepy. But not Edward Scissorhands creepy. More, 21st century Michael Jackson creepy. And his lines just weren't as clever as Wilder's lines were. Depp was a child in a man's body. I feel bad for him. There's nothing worse than being that out of step with reality. I didn't feel good about the ending.
Oompa Loompas
First off, big props to Deep Roy. He did very well. Did not like the songs though. The original songs were about teaching morality. These songs were focused more on emulating a certain music style and not giving proper homage to the sin at hand.
Effects
2005 version. Our movies may be getting less original. But dam, they look so good.
Help me? I'm on the fence!
Wednesday, July 20, 2005
And Then There Were Four
Tuesday, July 19, 2005
Random thought...
Is it just me, or has Microsoft done more to destroy the grammar and punctuation of the English language than any other force in history? Thanks to the spell checker, I can't spell anymore, and have no idea how to use commas. It's like calcualators destroying basic math skills.
Renting Software
As you guys know I've started blogging for work. Well Steve Rubel is the PR guru of blogging. Very interesting blog and from what I hear quite a nice guy.
Anyway, he brought up the topic of renting software. Specifically, he mentioned a company that is offering a home-grown, web-enabled version of the MSOffice suite.
Fear not dear reader, I wouldn't want you to exert your index finger more than is absolutely necessary. So forgive me Steve, but I'm posting my comments here as well.
Let me know how wrong or dare I say...right I am.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Call me a curmudgeon. A man living in an on-demand world, mired in the idea of actual ownership.
I don't want to rent my software. I want to pay one fee and not have to think about it again. Between toll booth payment systems, online content subscriptions, and several utility bills, I have more than enough sources siphoning my bank account. Now, IÂm supposed to let software vendors in there as well? Perhaps for game software that has little to no replay value I would consider it, but a ubiquitous piece of coding like the MS Office suite, No thank you.
Also, what about when the Internet fails? Granted, stability has improved by leaps and bounds over the past few years, but there are still those times when either the network is so congested surfing becomes an exercise in frustration or you just flat out canÂt connect. Under this model:
No Internet=No Productivity.
No Thank You!
Anyway, he brought up the topic of renting software. Specifically, he mentioned a company that is offering a home-grown, web-enabled version of the MSOffice suite.
Fear not dear reader, I wouldn't want you to exert your index finger more than is absolutely necessary. So forgive me Steve, but I'm posting my comments here as well.
Let me know how wrong or dare I say...right I am.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Call me a curmudgeon. A man living in an on-demand world, mired in the idea of actual ownership.
I don't want to rent my software. I want to pay one fee and not have to think about it again. Between toll booth payment systems, online content subscriptions, and several utility bills, I have more than enough sources siphoning my bank account. Now, IÂm supposed to let software vendors in there as well? Perhaps for game software that has little to no replay value I would consider it, but a ubiquitous piece of coding like the MS Office suite, No thank you.
Also, what about when the Internet fails? Granted, stability has improved by leaps and bounds over the past few years, but there are still those times when either the network is so congested surfing becomes an exercise in frustration or you just flat out canÂt connect. Under this model:
No Internet=No Productivity.
No Thank You!
Friday, July 15, 2005
The "Realism" of Batman Begins
There's been a lot of talk about the "realism" of Batman Begins, as opposed to the more fantastical version by Tim Burton. People have hypothesized that Nolan will not include more exotic and far-fetched characters like Mr. Freeze, The Riddler, Bane, the Mad Hatter, Clayface and so on, in future Batman outings. "It just doesn't hold with Nolan's realistic Batman."
To that, I offer this thought: There are none of the costume-and-mask characters Batman Begins because Batman is the cause this phenomenon. The phenomenon is a direct reaction to the arrival of the Batman.
It's a Yin/Yang thing. The criminal element overtaking Gotham when Bruce is young has thrown the city out of balance. The restoration of balance occurs when Bruce's parents are killed. He becomes the Batman, and begins to restore balance.
The problem is, he is too effective. The pendulum swings the other way and the side of good overwhelms the city's criminal element. As a response, these maniacal super-villains emerge. Their costumes and M.O.s are the distorted reflection of Batman's.
The ultimate example of this is the Joker. The Joker is the antithesis of Batman, representing everything Batman does not. Batman stands for truth, justice, reason. He's always stoic and deadly serious. The Joker, on the other hand, is pure, homicidal insanity, destruction and chaos wrapped up in a purple suit.
Of course, the balance in Gotham is best represented by Two-Face. This is a classic theme, one that can be found in classics like "Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde" (which creators Bob Kane and Bill Finger used as inspiration for Two-Face). It's a battle between our destructive, animal nature and the logical higher-reason aspects of our minds.
So, I think that as Batman continues, the world of Gotham will continue to get more bizarre and less "real." As Batman descends further into his own psychosis (and let's face it, he is crazy in his own right), Gotham will descend into madness with him. I think Nolan will take us there.
Tuesday, July 12, 2005
I'm Batman...
Da na na na na na na na, na na na na na na na na LEADER! I mean BATMAN!
Okay, I know I said that I was going to get back to everyone about why I loved Batman Begins so much, but I'm a lazy git and never got around to it. So, why was Batman Begins the best Batman yet? There's a lot of reasons. Let's run down the list:
1) The characters.
Batman Begins makes up for it's deviance from the Batman "canon"* by remaining true to the characters. For the first time, they really explore what made Bruce Wayne go from just another victim of a horrific crime to a man obsessed. They dive into his head and give us a story about obsession, fear and vengeance.
Many fans wanted an adaptation of Batman: Year One. I know I did. I'm not sure why they didn't do a direct adaptation, but it doesn't matter. They gave us a story that succeeds in the same way Year One does. The reason Frank Miller's Batman stories are so good (not to mention his Daredevil stories and so on) is because he takes the characters seriously. The Joel Schumacher movies failed (and to a lesser degree, the Tim Burton movies), because there was still that element of comic-bookishness to them.
They also failed because they didn't remain true to the characters. I don't care about Batgirl being Alfred's niece or the Joker shooting Bruce's parents. Look at the Joker in Batman. He may be crazy, but he still knows who he is. He remembers Jack Napier. He goes after Jack Pallance and then Batman out of revenge. That's not how the Joker operates. First of all, his mind is so fractured that very little of his former life exists. His mind is consumed by the Joker. "The Joker, by contrast, is literally a killer clown, driven by a disordered and chaotic mind to pursue destruction and chaos with as much panache as possible."
Batman Begins stays faithful to the essence of the characters, if not the nitpicky details.
2. The script.
All superhero movies (or any movie based on some previously published work) takes some liberties with the original story. Some are relatively minor, like in The Lord of the Rings, (and you can debate that someother time) and some are major, like in I, Robot. Some changes work, like in Blade Runner. Some don't, like in The Hulk. This has been the bane of sci-fi purists for decades. The Joker isn't tall enough. The Human Torch burns at 287 degrees, not 297. Since when could zombies run? Etc, etc.
Now comes Batman Begins. In the past Batman franchises, certain liberties were taken with the story. The Joker killed Bruce's parents. The Penguin was a circus freak. Batgirl was Alfred's niece. The same could be said of Batman Begins. Ra's Al Ghul did not train Bruce Wayne (Although Henri Ducard did). Joe Chill was not gunned down by a mob boss. The difference between this movie and the last couple is that the changes are relatively minor and they work.
And while they did not adapt Batman: Year One like many had hoped, there were plenty of "borrowed" scenes and references.
3. The Actors.
Christopher Nolan put together an incredible cast. Christian Bale is excellent as both Bruce Wayne and Batman. The only thing that bothered me was that thing on his eye. Get it removed, dude!
The supporting cast was even better. Gary Oldman was, as usual, perfect as Lt. Jim Gordon. Morgan Freeman was great as Lucius Fox. I was a little aprehensive at first about Michael Caine as Alfred, but he owned the role. Cillian Murphy was excellent, Tom Wilkinson, Liam Neeson, Ken Watanabe. They were all great. Even Katie Holmes didn't annoy me, which was a welcome suprise.
4. The Direction.
Christopher Nolan put together a great film. From the style of the fight scenes (meant to resemble a swarm of bats), to the way he motivated his cast, to the overall look of the film. The art direction, costumes, sets, lighting, pacing, shot choices. Every detail was explored, and it worked very well. (Incidentally, Nolan did not use a 2nd Unit director like most films do. This is someone who is in charge of filming minor things, like close-ups and cutaway shots. Instead, Nolan oversaw every aspect of this film.)
*I hate the use of words like "canon" and "gospel" in reference to comic story lines, especially something like Batman, who is now approaching 70. There is no such thing as Batman's "continuity." But all this is for another post.
Okay, I know I said that I was going to get back to everyone about why I loved Batman Begins so much, but I'm a lazy git and never got around to it. So, why was Batman Begins the best Batman yet? There's a lot of reasons. Let's run down the list:
1) The characters.
Batman Begins makes up for it's deviance from the Batman "canon"* by remaining true to the characters. For the first time, they really explore what made Bruce Wayne go from just another victim of a horrific crime to a man obsessed. They dive into his head and give us a story about obsession, fear and vengeance.
Many fans wanted an adaptation of Batman: Year One. I know I did. I'm not sure why they didn't do a direct adaptation, but it doesn't matter. They gave us a story that succeeds in the same way Year One does. The reason Frank Miller's Batman stories are so good (not to mention his Daredevil stories and so on) is because he takes the characters seriously. The Joel Schumacher movies failed (and to a lesser degree, the Tim Burton movies), because there was still that element of comic-bookishness to them.
They also failed because they didn't remain true to the characters. I don't care about Batgirl being Alfred's niece or the Joker shooting Bruce's parents. Look at the Joker in Batman. He may be crazy, but he still knows who he is. He remembers Jack Napier. He goes after Jack Pallance and then Batman out of revenge. That's not how the Joker operates. First of all, his mind is so fractured that very little of his former life exists. His mind is consumed by the Joker. "The Joker, by contrast, is literally a killer clown, driven by a disordered and chaotic mind to pursue destruction and chaos with as much panache as possible."
Batman Begins stays faithful to the essence of the characters, if not the nitpicky details.
2. The script.
All superhero movies (or any movie based on some previously published work) takes some liberties with the original story. Some are relatively minor, like in The Lord of the Rings, (and you can debate that someother time) and some are major, like in I, Robot. Some changes work, like in Blade Runner. Some don't, like in The Hulk. This has been the bane of sci-fi purists for decades. The Joker isn't tall enough. The Human Torch burns at 287 degrees, not 297. Since when could zombies run? Etc, etc.
Now comes Batman Begins. In the past Batman franchises, certain liberties were taken with the story. The Joker killed Bruce's parents. The Penguin was a circus freak. Batgirl was Alfred's niece. The same could be said of Batman Begins. Ra's Al Ghul did not train Bruce Wayne (Although Henri Ducard did). Joe Chill was not gunned down by a mob boss. The difference between this movie and the last couple is that the changes are relatively minor and they work.
And while they did not adapt Batman: Year One like many had hoped, there were plenty of "borrowed" scenes and references.
3. The Actors.
Christopher Nolan put together an incredible cast. Christian Bale is excellent as both Bruce Wayne and Batman. The only thing that bothered me was that thing on his eye. Get it removed, dude!
The supporting cast was even better. Gary Oldman was, as usual, perfect as Lt. Jim Gordon. Morgan Freeman was great as Lucius Fox. I was a little aprehensive at first about Michael Caine as Alfred, but he owned the role. Cillian Murphy was excellent, Tom Wilkinson, Liam Neeson, Ken Watanabe. They were all great. Even Katie Holmes didn't annoy me, which was a welcome suprise.
4. The Direction.
Christopher Nolan put together a great film. From the style of the fight scenes (meant to resemble a swarm of bats), to the way he motivated his cast, to the overall look of the film. The art direction, costumes, sets, lighting, pacing, shot choices. Every detail was explored, and it worked very well. (Incidentally, Nolan did not use a 2nd Unit director like most films do. This is someone who is in charge of filming minor things, like close-ups and cutaway shots. Instead, Nolan oversaw every aspect of this film.)
*I hate the use of words like "canon" and "gospel" in reference to comic story lines, especially something like Batman, who is now approaching 70. There is no such thing as Batman's "continuity." But all this is for another post.
Monday, July 11, 2005
The Hero or The City?
We only gave a very brief nod to the movie Batman Begins, and I feel this oversight is a sin beyond redemption given our self-appointed titles of Uber Nerds. Wait, we didn't give ourselves titles? I'm the only one wearing an Uber Nerd puffy letter iron decal T-shirt? Screw you guys...
Anyway, so I've been trying to figure out what made Batman Begins such a dam good movie. There are the usual suspects like dialogue, acting, pacing etc...and if I wanted a 3rd grade book report of the movie, those are the elements I would focus on. I believe it's deeper than that though.
As much as I enjoyed the beginning of the film, the movie didn't capture me until the Wayne's were riding on the triple decker super train towards Wayne Tower. I think the one thing that Tim Burton and now Christopher Nolan did so very well, was to create a Gotham that was as equally compelling as its caped champion.
Now where Nolan blew Burton out of the water was fleshing out the supporting cast, but we'll save that for another post.
I'm now going to jump a bit between movies and comics, so please forgive me. Spider-man is the star of his series. The city is incidental. However, with a character like Superman, I believe he is sometimes overshadowed by the city he protects. When Brainiac took over Metropolis and introduced all of his strange technology into the infrastructure, the Superman titles belonged to Metropolis, not Superman and his domestic woes with Lois.
When the setting is as vivid as the protagonist, it enriches the story ten fold.
Just look at one of the best books written in the past ten years: Astro City. The characters posses facets of DC and Marvel characters, but the city is so dam unique and vibrant you just can't help loving this book.
Anyway, so I've been trying to figure out what made Batman Begins such a dam good movie. There are the usual suspects like dialogue, acting, pacing etc...and if I wanted a 3rd grade book report of the movie, those are the elements I would focus on. I believe it's deeper than that though.
As much as I enjoyed the beginning of the film, the movie didn't capture me until the Wayne's were riding on the triple decker super train towards Wayne Tower. I think the one thing that Tim Burton and now Christopher Nolan did so very well, was to create a Gotham that was as equally compelling as its caped champion.
Now where Nolan blew Burton out of the water was fleshing out the supporting cast, but we'll save that for another post.
I'm now going to jump a bit between movies and comics, so please forgive me. Spider-man is the star of his series. The city is incidental. However, with a character like Superman, I believe he is sometimes overshadowed by the city he protects. When Brainiac took over Metropolis and introduced all of his strange technology into the infrastructure, the Superman titles belonged to Metropolis, not Superman and his domestic woes with Lois.
When the setting is as vivid as the protagonist, it enriches the story ten fold.
Just look at one of the best books written in the past ten years: Astro City. The characters posses facets of DC and Marvel characters, but the city is so dam unique and vibrant you just can't help loving this book.
Friday, July 08, 2005
Aquaman
The other day I was talking to a coworker who was telling me all about this show on HBO called Entourage, about a young, up-and-coming movie star and his buddies. I've only seen it once or twice, and never really gave it much thought. Anyway, he was telling me that the movie star character was going to be in an Aquaman movie. His agent was pushing him into the role and after much thought, he went for it.
I thought it was hillarious. So much thought over whether or not it was a good idea to play Aquaman? Let's be honest. Aquaman is basically the Roger Clinton of the superhero world; cheesy and embarassing. Wouldn't this be a no-brainer? Come on.
Then suddenly, a thought crossed my mind. Three words flashed through my brain: Herbie: Fully Loaded. Then two more words: Fantastic Four. Then two more: The Pacifier. People make enormously bad decisions for movies all the time.
Why? Why does this happen? Why does the Sci Fi channel make movies like Mansquito? I was actually at Bloodblister Video the other night and overheard a mother and daughter discuss whether or not the Pacifier was a good movie. This was not an 8-year-old child, mind you. This girl was at least 18 or 19. Honestly, if you're that dumb at 18, you shouldn't be allowed into R-rated movies.
Now, I haven't seen The Pacifier, Fantastic Four, or the new Herbie, but I think it's safe to assume that they suck. If someone wants to rise to their defense, please do. I just needed to rant for a bit.
I thought it was hillarious. So much thought over whether or not it was a good idea to play Aquaman? Let's be honest. Aquaman is basically the Roger Clinton of the superhero world; cheesy and embarassing. Wouldn't this be a no-brainer? Come on.
Then suddenly, a thought crossed my mind. Three words flashed through my brain: Herbie: Fully Loaded. Then two more words: Fantastic Four. Then two more: The Pacifier. People make enormously bad decisions for movies all the time.
Why? Why does this happen? Why does the Sci Fi channel make movies like Mansquito? I was actually at Bloodblister Video the other night and overheard a mother and daughter discuss whether or not the Pacifier was a good movie. This was not an 8-year-old child, mind you. This girl was at least 18 or 19. Honestly, if you're that dumb at 18, you shouldn't be allowed into R-rated movies.
Now, I haven't seen The Pacifier, Fantastic Four, or the new Herbie, but I think it's safe to assume that they suck. If someone wants to rise to their defense, please do. I just needed to rant for a bit.
Larry Niven
Rememeber that scene in Mallrats when Brodie is describing the mating difficulties of Superman? Well, that wasn't all that original. In 1971, Larry Niven, author of the Ringworld books, wrote this article on the subject: Man of Steel, Woman of Kleenex.
What's the deal with Kevin Smith anyway? He says he's never doing a Jay and Silent Bob movie again. Then he does Jersey Girl, it flops, and now I hear he's doing a sequel to Clerks. Make up your mind, man.
What's the deal with Kevin Smith anyway? He says he's never doing a Jay and Silent Bob movie again. Then he does Jersey Girl, it flops, and now I hear he's doing a sequel to Clerks. Make up your mind, man.
Great Video Game Article
Politics - schmolitics. Let's get back to what's really important. Although I did give some hard earned duckets to these guys at the Wounded Warrior Project today. Mrs. Government Cheese went to school with one of the founders. He had half the innards of his skull pureed by shrapnel while defending a dam in Iraq.
Everything we've griped about in games has been summed up in a nice tidy package by the guys over at pointless waste of time.
Everything we've griped about in games has been summed up in a nice tidy package by the guys over at pointless waste of time.
Wednesday, July 06, 2005
RE: Sayonara Sandra - Hello Crapo IV: The Quest for Peace
There are a few more suggestions I might have for my fellow Democrats.
4) Take back what's yours. Since when was the freakin' GOP the party of the people? Since when did they lay claim to be the ones looking out for the little guy? For the last 13 or so years the republicans have been edging into our territory by making Christians in America think that the Democrats are trying to undermine Christian morals. Hello? Haven't the Democrats been the champions or the poor and the downtrodden since FDR? If taking care of the poor is undermining Christianity in America, then I read the wrong Bible.
5) Get rid of Howard Dean. Yes, I know Howard's the party's chair. He's also the only one who actually manages to say what everyone's thinking. He's also a masterful fundraiser. But people only remember that scream. It's stupid, but true.
Besides, he really let me down when he said that the republicans are the party of rich white Christians. OF COURSE THEY ARE! But Howard, sensing a political backlash, completely wussed out. He started backpeddling and saying "I didn't mean to insult Christians." Again, the Democrats need to grow a pair.
6) Two Words: Barack Obama. What can I say? He rocks.
7) Stop using Hitler references. Honestly, they aren't working. "Pictures from Abu Ghraib and Gitmo look like something the Nazis would do!" No one is listening. Chances are the only thing you'll do with that kind of rhetoric is possibly piss off some Holocaust survivors. When I said don't be afraid to piss people off, I didn't mean Holocaust survivors. That's just common sense (something else the party needs).
I'm sure I'll think of some more...
4) Take back what's yours. Since when was the freakin' GOP the party of the people? Since when did they lay claim to be the ones looking out for the little guy? For the last 13 or so years the republicans have been edging into our territory by making Christians in America think that the Democrats are trying to undermine Christian morals. Hello? Haven't the Democrats been the champions or the poor and the downtrodden since FDR? If taking care of the poor is undermining Christianity in America, then I read the wrong Bible.
5) Get rid of Howard Dean. Yes, I know Howard's the party's chair. He's also the only one who actually manages to say what everyone's thinking. He's also a masterful fundraiser. But people only remember that scream. It's stupid, but true.
Besides, he really let me down when he said that the republicans are the party of rich white Christians. OF COURSE THEY ARE! But Howard, sensing a political backlash, completely wussed out. He started backpeddling and saying "I didn't mean to insult Christians." Again, the Democrats need to grow a pair.
6) Two Words: Barack Obama. What can I say? He rocks.
7) Stop using Hitler references. Honestly, they aren't working. "Pictures from Abu Ghraib and Gitmo look like something the Nazis would do!" No one is listening. Chances are the only thing you'll do with that kind of rhetoric is possibly piss off some Holocaust survivors. When I said don't be afraid to piss people off, I didn't mean Holocaust survivors. That's just common sense (something else the party needs).
I'm sure I'll think of some more...
RE: Sayonara Sandra - Hello Crapo: Trinity
Crapo? I wrote this in a comment but is worth repeating:
CRAPO?! I thought you were kidding when you mentioned Crapo. Crapo? That's really his name? Are you kidding me? How do you get elected with the name Crapo? Who was he up against? Fucko? It sounds like the idiot Marx Brother that no one talks about.
CRAPO?! I thought you were kidding when you mentioned Crapo. Crapo? That's really his name? Are you kidding me? How do you get elected with the name Crapo? Who was he up against? Fucko? It sounds like the idiot Marx Brother that no one talks about.
RE: Sayonara Sandra - Hello Crapo, Part Deux
I know I said that we need to get our shit together, but I offered no suggestions on how to do it: Here's the first couple ideas I've had:
1) Get rid of Hollywood actors. I'm sorry, but you guys really aren't helping. No one outside the entertainment industry cares what Susan Sarandon has to say. To the rest of America, you guys are so far out of touch that you make all liberals seem like wackos.
2) Drop the fringe. The republicans are succeeding because they have managed to separate themselves from the ultra-conservative faction. I'm not talking about the NRA wackos. For every member of the NRA, we have the ACLU. I'm talking about the really weird ones. The conservatives have the gun-toting, Bible thumping, guys living in bunkers in the Ozarks. Liberals have the hippie, free love, down with the G8, Save-the-Spotted-Owl potheads. Shake 'em off, we don't need 'em.
3) Grow a pair. Get a freakin' message! Offend people! Say shit that will piss off some people. Do anything that shows you have a backbone. Don't be afraid to be voted out of office! You're elected officials. If you lose your job, you won't have any problem finding a new one! Where was the outrage at the CIA person being outed? Where was the contempt for Abu Ghraib? Why wasn't the administration held accountable? Scream for answers! Take every lie and bullshit story they've come up with and throw it back in their faces! It's not that hard. They do it on the Daily Show every night!
More to come...
1) Get rid of Hollywood actors. I'm sorry, but you guys really aren't helping. No one outside the entertainment industry cares what Susan Sarandon has to say. To the rest of America, you guys are so far out of touch that you make all liberals seem like wackos.
2) Drop the fringe. The republicans are succeeding because they have managed to separate themselves from the ultra-conservative faction. I'm not talking about the NRA wackos. For every member of the NRA, we have the ACLU. I'm talking about the really weird ones. The conservatives have the gun-toting, Bible thumping, guys living in bunkers in the Ozarks. Liberals have the hippie, free love, down with the G8, Save-the-Spotted-Owl potheads. Shake 'em off, we don't need 'em.
3) Grow a pair. Get a freakin' message! Offend people! Say shit that will piss off some people. Do anything that shows you have a backbone. Don't be afraid to be voted out of office! You're elected officials. If you lose your job, you won't have any problem finding a new one! Where was the outrage at the CIA person being outed? Where was the contempt for Abu Ghraib? Why wasn't the administration held accountable? Scream for answers! Take every lie and bullshit story they've come up with and throw it back in their faces! It's not that hard. They do it on the Daily Show every night!
More to come...
RE: Sayonara Sandra - Hello Crapo
This started as a comment but became it's own post:
What they need is something to shake up the Democratic Party. They've lost their way. Look at Kerry. He's got no one to blame but himself for losing last fall. First off, he spent way too much time talking about the swift boats and not enough on issues. They thought that they'd bring Bush down the same way they did with Bush Sr., by focusing on the economy. The problem was, the war was the main issue. With Bush Sr., the war was over, so there was nothing to talk about. No true here. The war was the big issue and what was Kerry's response? The war is going fine.
Say what you want, but the GOP has got their shit together and the Democrats don't. Just look at the language of politics nowadays. The republicans are masters at demonizing anything that is liberal. They have an amazing spin team. The Estate Tax is now the death tax. Global Warming is now climate change. They take stuff that sounds bad and soften it. The stuff that sounds good, they give it a bad name so that people will reject it. Very few people had problems with the estate tax until they started calling it the "death tax." Suddenly, people were up in arms over it.
Look at the Patriot Act. Many Democrats and civil libertarians oppose it, but it looks bad. "You oppose the Patriot Act? You must be unpatriotic then!" It's at the point where the word "liberal" is a bad word.
I don't blame the GOP, though. I don't blame Bush or Karl Rove. I blame the Democrats. When the GOP started assaulting us with "liberal-this" and "tax-and-spend-that," the Democrats bent over and grabbed their ankles. They lost in 2004 because they were so afraid of offending anyone, that they had no message. They didn't seem like leaders, they seemed like wusses.
The other day I was walking in the city and I saw someone with a sign saying "Get Rid of Bush." I also saw a bumper sticker saying "Impeach Bush." Guess what? IT'S TOO LATE! We're stuck with him. We're not going to impeach him. First off, it's not going to happen with a republican controlled Congress. Second, he hasn't done anything illegal (that we can prove). Third, even if we could impeach him, they'll never remove him from office. We're stuck.
So, Sandra Day is retiring and the next 2-3 justices on the Supreme Court will be Bush appointees. The next four years will have Bush in the White House. So, what is a liberal to do? What we need to do is concentrate on getting the House and Senate back. That means the midterm elections next year are vital. To the people with the "Impeach Bush" stickers I say this: Stop bitching and focus your energy on what's next. We lost the White House. It's over. The only way to stop the Bush wave is by getting back the Congress, so shut the hell up and focus on the future.
Don't be officially afraid, Cheese. Be officially pissed.
What they need is something to shake up the Democratic Party. They've lost their way. Look at Kerry. He's got no one to blame but himself for losing last fall. First off, he spent way too much time talking about the swift boats and not enough on issues. They thought that they'd bring Bush down the same way they did with Bush Sr., by focusing on the economy. The problem was, the war was the main issue. With Bush Sr., the war was over, so there was nothing to talk about. No true here. The war was the big issue and what was Kerry's response? The war is going fine.
Say what you want, but the GOP has got their shit together and the Democrats don't. Just look at the language of politics nowadays. The republicans are masters at demonizing anything that is liberal. They have an amazing spin team. The Estate Tax is now the death tax. Global Warming is now climate change. They take stuff that sounds bad and soften it. The stuff that sounds good, they give it a bad name so that people will reject it. Very few people had problems with the estate tax until they started calling it the "death tax." Suddenly, people were up in arms over it.
Look at the Patriot Act. Many Democrats and civil libertarians oppose it, but it looks bad. "You oppose the Patriot Act? You must be unpatriotic then!" It's at the point where the word "liberal" is a bad word.
I don't blame the GOP, though. I don't blame Bush or Karl Rove. I blame the Democrats. When the GOP started assaulting us with "liberal-this" and "tax-and-spend-that," the Democrats bent over and grabbed their ankles. They lost in 2004 because they were so afraid of offending anyone, that they had no message. They didn't seem like leaders, they seemed like wusses.
The other day I was walking in the city and I saw someone with a sign saying "Get Rid of Bush." I also saw a bumper sticker saying "Impeach Bush." Guess what? IT'S TOO LATE! We're stuck with him. We're not going to impeach him. First off, it's not going to happen with a republican controlled Congress. Second, he hasn't done anything illegal (that we can prove). Third, even if we could impeach him, they'll never remove him from office. We're stuck.
So, Sandra Day is retiring and the next 2-3 justices on the Supreme Court will be Bush appointees. The next four years will have Bush in the White House. So, what is a liberal to do? What we need to do is concentrate on getting the House and Senate back. That means the midterm elections next year are vital. To the people with the "Impeach Bush" stickers I say this: Stop bitching and focus your energy on what's next. We lost the White House. It's over. The only way to stop the Bush wave is by getting back the Congress, so shut the hell up and focus on the future.
Don't be officially afraid, Cheese. Be officially pissed.
Friday, July 01, 2005
Sayonara Sandra - Hello Crapo
Is anyone else afraid? Afraid for where this country is going to be in 2010 and beyond? Personally, I'm on the fence, or at least I was until I heard the news about Sandra Day O'Connor stepping down.
Bush will not be remembered as a great President, or a moderately good President. But, honestly the repercussions of his administration should have only resonated a few years past the day they inaugurate (insert Democrat here) in 2009. That was until we lost 1/2 of the female presence on The Supreme Court this week, and Crapo seeped to the top of the judicial branch candidate heap. Yeah, Crapo. With Sandra stepping down and two other justices beating a fast track to their eternal reward, Bush is poised to leave a mark on this country that will supersede his debacle in the Middle East.
And while on the topic of his replacement choices. Aside from Crapo there are apparently two other men on the short list. I don't think any institution works well with a membership exclusively made up of men. Look at Fraternity houses. Hell of a good time, but as functional as Screech pulling in pussy to the band Zack Attack.
I'm officially afraid.
Bush will not be remembered as a great President, or a moderately good President. But, honestly the repercussions of his administration should have only resonated a few years past the day they inaugurate (insert Democrat here) in 2009. That was until we lost 1/2 of the female presence on The Supreme Court this week, and Crapo seeped to the top of the judicial branch candidate heap. Yeah, Crapo. With Sandra stepping down and two other justices beating a fast track to their eternal reward, Bush is poised to leave a mark on this country that will supersede his debacle in the Middle East.
And while on the topic of his replacement choices. Aside from Crapo there are apparently two other men on the short list. I don't think any institution works well with a membership exclusively made up of men. Look at Fraternity houses. Hell of a good time, but as functional as Screech pulling in pussy to the band Zack Attack.
I'm officially afraid.
