Cinema Bits

I'm still into heavy video game times, but I've become bogged down in one particular game almost to the exclusion of all other play. When I finish that thing soon, I'll put up a 'blog entry on it and get on to some other game topics too. Here's some films or DVDs I've managed to squeeze in over the last few weeks:

The Haunted World of El Superbeasto. Rob Zombie's years-long-production animated comedy. Surprisingly polished animation on a very raunchy violent story. At first, if one is an 'elderly person' such as myself, it might put you in mind of Ralph Bakshi's adult-oriented cartoons like Wizards or Fritz the Cat. But the spazziness and surreal humor actually has more in common I think with Spongebob Squarepants or The Marvelous Misadventures of Flapjack. Be warned: the violence, nudity, and cussin' are off the scale, though humorous in nature and not realistic. Special mention needs to be made of how hilarious Rosario Dawson is as a ebonics-spouting WHITE ho, and the songs are unbelievably funny, IF you really pay attention to the lyrics... particularly the Yellow Submarine-esque song playing behind Suzy X's first battle with the nazis. Open-minded pop-culture mavens should get this but keep it locked away from the kids.

Where The Wild Things Are. This was on my list to take my kids to go see because the book is great and a staple of just about every family library. I wasn't sure how they could expand a work made of about a dozen lines of poem into a feature film, but the production design and cinematography in the trailer looked so stunning I was willing to give the idea a chance. Then came the controversy. In the media, parents supposedly found the movie inappropriate. Well I like me some controversial films, so that made going to see this that much more appealing. I deliberately avoided actually reading up on what was so disturbing because I wanted to see if I could discern what the fuss was about myself, and see if my kids actually noticed anything objectionable from their point-of-view. First off the movie is okay. As expected from the promo reels the look and sound of the movie is unique and very well done, but quite melancholy compared to the book. I can see how the writers and director derived this feel from the story, but it isn't something I've ever felt myself all the times I've read it so it was a surprise. Also, the misbehavior on Max's part, which could be interpreted as just a mild issue read from the book, is treated as a serious alienation or ADD-related emotional disturbance. And this all may be why the movie was only 'okay' for me. It isn't like the tone was truly awful (to me) or invalid, but it wasn't joyous or cheerfully humorous in anyway. The wild things themselves are given 'everyday people' sorts of voices and they seem neurotic and dreary too.

I usually like my expectations to be challenged in a film, book, or game, but in this case my view of the source material is too strongly rooted. In the same way the Lord of The Rings were written in stone for uber-fans before Peter Jackson's trilogy of films came out.

So when I followed up on the controversy the next day I expected the emotional issues and realistically awful problems this creates in Max's family to be the point. There is also a lesson about abusive relationships taught to Max (by example) on the wild things' island. I figured THAT stuff was what would be objectionable. Well, the depressing tone, and unfriendly depiction of relationships was mentioned by critics... but what did parents object to? Scary scenes.

What the fuck? The wild things are MONSTERS. In the book and in the movie. They are stylized on the printed page as per Maurice Sendak's art style. Apart from doing the film as animation (or a Muppet Movie) the monsters, though derived directly from the book illustrations, ARE going to be more realistic. They just are. And what do parents think the wild things do on that island when Max isn't lording it over them? They must do what monsters do. So in an expanded format you are going to have to see some other behaviors. I think there are three scary 'things' that parents objected to. Shots of bones, indicating the wild things have eaten people in the past, a sequence involving the lead wild thing chasing Max down threatening to eat him, and a scene where that selfsame wild thing rips the arm off another wild thing... bloodless and treated humorously by the victim.

This is totally retarded. My kids didn't find anything objectionable in the movie. Nothing scary. They just found Max to be a bit of a dick and were glad he seemed to have reformed a bit by movie's end. And my kids are not jaded either. They get nightmares from images seen in Hammer horror films over Halloween (more on that below). They get apprehensive from previews of Harry Potter movies. But nothing in Where The Wild Things Are induced that sort of fear in them. I like Sendak's quote on the matter. Parents who find the content too disturbing for kids can: "go to hell. That's a question I will not tolerate" and he further noted "I saw the most horrendous movies that were unfit for child's eyes. So what? I managed to survive."

Speaking of which-

Dracula Has Risen From the Grave. This is a goshdamn awesome old movie. Everything a fan of Hammer films loves is in here apart from Peter Cushing. When I was a kid of about nine, my Mom started letting me stay up late on Friday and Saturday nights to watch old horror films and Kolchak the Night Stalker. Afternoons after school had the Harryhausen, 50's science fiction, and occasional Godzilla movie. But late-night was the dark stuff. Literally. I would sit close in front of the TV with all the lights out, some snack going uneaten while I absorbed the horrific spectacles paraded out in grainy prints from Universal, Hammer, Amicus, AIP and others. My Mom was a good church-going woman, but she just didn't see the harm in these rendezvous with FICTION. She trusted that I was discerning enough to keep a bedrock of disbelief underneath the enjoyment or fear. And it didn't hurt that I never complained about nightmares. Even when I did have them, the possibility of being banned (like other kids including my brother-- hah!) kept my trap shut on the subject.

Anyway. The movie. Risen is the third in Hammer's Dracula series. Hammer studios was known for very 'English' actors and acting, colorful 'stagey' costumes and sets, and most of all for putting the sex and blood into horror. The sex was mostly lowcut bodices on the victims and heroines, and the blood was the luridly colored 'paint' common to films of the 60's. But at the time of their release (before I was watching them on TV mind you) they were pretty strong stuff... to the point of being severely censored or banned in many countries. The over-the-top acting (and very theatrical costumes and sets) were the standard for films of the day, but the color and style really set the Hammer films apart. And of course Christopher Lee's version of Dracula, made more of an actual personality in this film, is just the cherry on top. The movie drags a bit in the middle as it sets up all the people and logistics necessary to move Dracula from the village he's terrorised in the previous film to the big city, but the climax more than makes up for it.

Spoiler Alert: It had been a long time since I'd seen this film, so I didn't remember a lot of specifics... even the ending. Considering this film was made in 1968, I still found the climax in this film to be more hair-raising and just-plain-awesome than dozens of more modern films... including just about any 'Dracula' movie you can name. Near the end of the film, Dracula has been 'staked' by the hero. This is a particularly graphic scene... probably cut when I saw this on TV as a kid... I'm mean, no shit, the blood is pouring out. But in THIS vampire mythos you can't just stake the vampire (at least not one as powerful as Dracula) you have to say a rite just after to complete the process. Well, no one manages to get the words out, so Dracula motherfucking gets out of his coffin and pulls this huge, and I mean huge, stake out of his own chest and gets on with the business of knocking the hero around and kidnapping the girl. When he gets back to his castle he orders the girl to remove this huge gilded cross that is sealing the main doors. She throws it over the side of the short cliff on which the castle resides and after the climactic struggle with the hero a few minutes later, Dracula falls off same cliff and lands impaled on the gold cross. But of course it doesn't end there. You gotta say the rites. This time a formerly-enthralled priest does the honors... all the while Dracula is spitting and writhing on this cross, and almost manages to get himself off of it. But the words are spoken, and the end of Dracula is shreds of his cloak and copious amounts of blood running down the cross. It probably doesn't get much better than THAT to a horror-seeking kid plomped in front of a late-night television set. How can Where The Wild Things Are even approach that? It isn't realistic looking in the modern sense, but once you spend the earlier part of the film getting involved and buying into Hammer-world, it's pretty damn intense. And I would still let my kids watch this. It was part of my growing up. I just can't see this as damaging. I almost feel like I'd be depriving them if I didn't at least give them a chance to see Hammer films as I saw them. Well better than I saw them actually...

The DVD I watched comes in a set and the print is so much more colorful and clear than anything previously available for any Hammer film. Watching a DVD like this, especially on an HDTV, will give the viewer some idea what it must have been like to see them in a theater, before grainy, scratchy, washed-out prints became the norm. And even with those faults, I still remember Hammer films as being the most colorful selections in my late-night fare. I'll single out Veronica Carlson here too. I met her sometime in the 90's at a horror convention in Baltimore. She looked pretty good there still, but watching this movie will let you in on why she was mobbed at that meet. She made wearing a bodice and tilting your neck for the vampire an art form.

Since the color and stageyness of the Hammer films lends an air of unreality watching one of these has become a sort of tradition with my kids at Halloween. This year it was The Mummy. Pretty much all the positives I mentioned for the above film would apply to The Mummy as well, subtracting the gore, but adding in very creepy living eyes in a dead face (again supplied by Lee), and the presence of Peter Cushing. No blood but still a real wincer of a scene during a flashback to ancient Egypt. I highly recommend Hammer films as a Halloween tradition. They still give my kids sleep problems, but I look at it as necessary toughening up.

Drag Me To Crapville

Wow. Color me amazed at how wrong 'the critics' are about the film Drag Me To Hell.

I rented this thing after reading up and down the 'net about how great this thing was. 'A return to form for Raimi', 'scariest film of the year', 'funny and shocking'... blah blah blah. Almost all the majors, Ebert, Travers, etc lined up with positive things to say about this movie.

A big thumbs down to all of them I say.

After doing the Halloween thing with the kids I was hoping to settle down with a good horror movie for the later part of the evening since I didn't have any plans to go out. I had missed seeing Drag Me To Hell in the theater, and was not happy about that. So for several months it has been my plan to make up for that miss by watching this movie over Halloween. Raimi has been an okay director in my book. I like the Spiderman films just fine, but this was looking to be a return to form of the Evil Dead variety. I should have known this would be more Evil Dead 2, my least favorite, than Evil Dead 1, my most-est favorite.

I went with the unrated version thinking THAT would be Raimi's Evil Dead 1 self really unleashed as opposed to the PG-13 rating that I thought he'd been saddled with to justify the budget that probably went into Drag Me To Hell.

As it turns out the budget was pretty big for a horror film, but small time for Raimi after doing shit like the Spiderman trilogy. He also wasn't reigned in by the PG-13 rating apparently, since he's quoted as not wanting gore to be the draw. That's fine. Gore shouldn't have to be the draw in (all) horror films. Having seen only the unrated version, I can't imagine what was cut since NOTHING about Drag Me To Hell rises to an R level. In fact, apart from a few very cartoony gross-out effects I'm not sure much of this gets to a PG-13 level.

This film has nothing to recommend it. I can't believe it was the horror darling of the critics. The characters are likable but boring apart the different and awful cursing gyspy woman. She was great (and disgusting). Not enough to make a great scream flick. Not one bit of this movie's plot was a surprise. Not one scene was scary. The only thing shocking was how many different ways Raimi could force foreign objects into the heroine's mouth. It went beyond oral fixation. She's eating drool, worms, embalming fluid, a fly, a shawl, everything except, presumably, Raimi's cock since it wouldn't require any auditioning 'extras' to land the lead part. I take that back. It DID take some sort of bravery and fortitude to eat everything Raimi required on film.

What the fuck? What did I miss? I feel like Will Ferrel's character Mugatu in Zoolander. Mugatu laments at the climax that he 'must be taking crazy pills' if everyone else sees talent in Derek Zoolander where he doesn't. 'I invented the piano necktie, Derek! What have you ever done!'

I felt like that watching this movie. I sat there just waiting for the part that everyone found so great. And it never happened. The movie started out fine. Complete with a child, A CHILD, getting pulled down to hell. That made me think 'wow, this movie might pull very few punches'. The first encounter with the gyspy woman is fine too. But the movie never really tries to be anything but sort of blackly humored fantasy movie. Everything is too brightly lit to be atmospheric. Everything is shown right out in the open. There are a few jump-at-you bits, but they are pretty weak since they are boldly foreshadowed. And nothing in the movie is as grim as the very first bit where the kid is pulled down by demons... until the heroine herself is pulled down by demons.

What? Did I just post a spoiler? No. I just saved you the rental fee. Even if everyone else in the world likes this movie, I'm considering this the opening (and likely only) volley in my personal campaign against the film.

Blech.

Historical Bollocks

Two movies seen somewhat recently that I'd recommend despite the questionable accuracy of what's depicted.

Inglourious Basterds.
I like Quentin Tarantino's work thought I'm not quite the slavering fanboy who thinks he can do no wrong. I always find his films interesting though the cine-referential (and fan-referential) stuff is getting tired. I wish he'd take a break and do a movie that at least felt like it was its own piece and not an homage to a film or genre he enjoyed in the grindhouses and video stores of his youth.

Basterds is another pastiche/homage film. Not of one genre mind you, but a sort of mash-up of B-movie war film and spaghetti western. It is also a thorough re-imagining of history. Tarantino typically sets his films in modern times and contexts, date undetermined and unimportant. The Kill Bill volumes had the most fantastical setting up to this point, contemporary with the year of release but allowing for other-than-factual abilities, organisations, and characters. Nothing he's done previously had a true historical background with the people and plot (fictitious or otherwise) placed squarely in a known timeline.

That sort of changes with Basterds. I honestly was expecting the patented Tarantino characters and story shoehorned somewhere within a recognisable WW2 chronology. Y'know, not a 'real' story but one that, however loosely it played with history, still fit what we basically know about the war and its major players. Instead this is WW2 as Tarantino wishes it had been. Up to the point where the Basterds are actually injected into service, it is probably the war we all know. After that it becomes a landscape of violent possibilities that sort of resembles WW2. And that's okay. I was surprised that it basically turned into a fantasy film, but it wasn't bad. Unlike most people I wasn't expecting the film to be full of profanity and violence. Tarantino has a reputation for it, and the trailer made it look like that was going to be the hook for the movie-- justified brutality on the Nazis amongst a lot of F-bombs. But I knew from previous experience, and a decent memory for all his filmography not just Kill Bill, that the violence was likely to be explosive but limited.

As expected the dialogue and plot twists are high points, but I'll add my voice to the chorus claiming the tension in two parts of the movie are probably the best reasons for viewing. The opening and the meeting in the bar. These are both scenes where you know something bad is going to happen, particularly the opener, but the tension is excruciating. In a manner only Tarantino can really pull off, the situations are unlikely and exaggerated by the personalities involved... but thoroughly believable too.

There isn't really anything I can add that you can't find a thousand people already saying on the internet. To me, the movie was worth seeing. It is EXACTLY what someone can expect from Tarantino's first 'historical' film, but only if you ignore the trailer and use his past work to inform your expectations. Despite the fact that it covers new contextual territory for the director it is STILL very much aware of its inspirations and never really lets you forget that... if one is at all familiar with the sources themselves. If you aren't, then this'll just seem like a movie with some weird choices. I'd still like to see the man make a film that doesn't wear its film geek references all over itself, but that might not be really possible for him to do. Rob Zombie has a similar approach to making a film, but I think he's more successful at integrating the fan stuff in a way that doesn't jerk you out of the story.

Kingdom of Heaven.
Ridley Scott is hit-or-miss for me. Some of his films are on my all-time favorite list and some are just 'meh'. Count me as one of the very few who seem to just not get all the hubbub around Gladiator. I didn't think it was bad. The liberties with history didn't bother me, though I did notice them. I just didn't see what all the fuss was about. I think Kingdom of Heaven is a much better film, but only if you get the Director's Cut.

Again the internet can make all my points for me in more detail than I care to repeat, but the Director's Cut adds about 45 minutes back into this movie that make all the difference in the world. I saw the theatrical version originally and felt basically the same as I did about Gladiator, though I thought Russell Crowe was a stronger lead for his role than Orlando Bloom is in KOH. The movie was 'okay'. I'm helping my son be a knight for Halloween this year, so building his helmet has gotten me in the mood for a 'medieval' film, and it had to have 'knights' in it as opposed to good-but-no-knights-medieval films like The Name of the Rose. I'm not exactly sure what prompted me to try KOH again. I think I read somewhere that the Director's Cut was just so much better and I may have retconned my own memory to believe THAT'S the one I watched before. But wow, is that some bullshit. This is a completely different film.

Count all motivations and backstories for all characters established, lack thereof being a serious criticism of the theatrical version, but that is to be expected if you look into the story behind the editing of the film. And after successes like Blade Runner and Gladiator, can't the studios just let the man release his vision intact? Cripes.

So much is filled in now. It even helps everyone's performance. The historical accuracy is still dodgy, most particularly with the who of Orlando Bloom's character, but the Director's Cut even puts some events and outcomes back right, where they were incorrect or just inconclusive in the theatrical cut. In some ways a movie like this 'historical epic' is kind of like Inglorious Basterds, a (somewhat) fantastical reimagining of the actual events. It is more noticeable in Basterds because the events are closer to being contemporary, and so better documented and more firmly covered in our education. KOH doesn't take quite the wild swing with history that Basterds does... though I'm sure a lot of Crusades scholars would take issue with me... the major events in the story DO go the way they do in history, most of the inaccuracies are Hollywood's usual simplification of characters and re-envisioning relationships (ie there's no basis to believe the lead character actually had the depicted romance with the leading lady). But the actual politics of the time were quite complicated and something has to be done to bold-stroke the facts and figures so that you don't need the kind of scorecard that is de rigeur for a BBC miniseries.

The only really jarring thing that still exists for me watching KOH is the rather modern views the movie espouses from the mouths of the characters. This anachronistic trope is frequently embodied in female characters who conform to modern sensibilities of the independent woman. See Kiera Knightly's characters in King Arthur or The Duchess. See also Scorcese's The Age of Innocence for a woman realistically fucked over by trying to be just that modern in a period setting.

Though KOH does have a female character attempting a form of independence, the anachronistic philosphising mentioned stem from the characters reacting to the film's central theme of religious conflict (or the place of spiritual beliefs in personal conduct). I'm pretty sure there actually were people with nuanced views of their own church or of the enemy (the Muslims) around the time of the 3rd Crusade. There'd have to be. People back in the day weren't without intelligent, reasoning individuals. But there are Hollywood-coincidence levels of keen observation amongst the good guys about the similarities between Muslim and Christian, a lot of talk about the importance of maintaining the peace above all else, and how the Church's warlike stance is in direct opposition to Christ's teachings. None of this viewpoint is actually disagreeable to me or the majority of filmgoers in essence. And I guess there's an aspect of like-minded people congregating if an apologist needs a rationale. It just struck me as an awful lot of careful espousing of politically-correct thinking. There IS a lot of 'kill the infidel' talk on the part of the Europeans (and a pointed, politically-correct absence of it from the Muslims), but it is also clearly drawn as hate speech. There is little attempt to show shades of gray, say a follower of the Church who wants the Holy Land to be Muslim-free, but would prefer NOT to slay women and children to do it. There had to be many, MANY Crusaders (military and civilian, titled and vulgar) who felt 'liberating' Jerusalem and surrounds through violence or the threat of violence was necessary or righteous, but unfortunate.

Now clearly Ridley Scott et al did not set out to produce a documentary. As one of the staff put it, 'just because we didn't put something in the movie doesn't mean we didn't know about it'. And the wealth of historical comparison info that has been put into DVD extras clearly indicates that the movie makers are not afraid of their choices either. They set out to entertain but also make an allegorical statement about the tension that exists today and has always existed in the Middle East. This film is a pretty good way to remind modern audiences that conflict over Israel is a deeply-rooted fiber in history. Like Basterds, the setting of KOH is fantastical in a sense (the scale of some of the castles and cities, the modern thinking, the relationships, etc), but I'd now rate the Director's Cut much higher than the theatrical cut both for conveying something real about its themes and as an entertaining film.

Hardcore Means You Show Penetration

In any fandom these days it seems like there is some sort of demarcation that separates the ‘true’ fans from the johnny-come-latelys. Y’know that thing that lets old-timers say ‘back when things were good’ or lets fans of any seniority claim elite knowledge because they know about super-obscure such-and-such.

In Japan, the root definition of ‘otaku’ before the West prettied it up was ‘maniac’… as in ‘detail obsessor that needs to get a life’. The Japanese can pursue an area of interest with a single-minded zeal that inhabitants in few other countries can approach. I suspect fat, middle-aged British and American military history collectors can come pretty damn close.

But it you follow discussions and articles on the internet or in periodicals, you can sure find a lot of fans acting like maniacs about their chosen interest (read: passion). There’s a lot of foaming at the mouth about how things ain’t like they used to be, the big companies only put out crap that’s sinking the industry, competition and innovation is being stifled, if you don’t listen to/play/buy X then you are a tasteless fuck and fuck those tasteless fucks anyway.

Here’s what I have to say to all of that: ‘Don’t fall in love with anything that can’t love you back.’.

I have an awful lot of stuff I’m into. Some of it I’m ‘passionate’ about. But y’know what? If they were to stop making, updating, or continuing ANY of it… I might not like it, but I’d survive.

NONE of the issues we have with our interests is worth rising emotionally to a level beyond annoyance. Really. And fans that disagree with you, or heaven forbid contribute money to something you don’t like? Disagree with their choice sure… but why slag on 'em?

‘They aren’t members of MY community motherfucker!’

Right.

The original motivation for this post was for me to get some thoughts out on the whole 'hardcore versus casual' debate in video games. But I realized this argumentative tendency is not exclusive to the gaming community and in fact is typical of any organized fandom. And for what? Is any of this shit really that important? I was going to get into some crap about how we should be open-minded, or people’s definition of good, quality, or fun is different, or how the voices of minority jerks tend to drown out the majority of level-headed people. True as all of that might be, it ultimately doesn’t matter.

Music is fun. Video games are fun. Movies, and books, and anime, and militaria, and all that stuff is fun. Or it should be. I think we get so heated or obsessive as fans that we lose sight of the fun part. But I guess bitching about tasteless fucks is fun too. Or it must be to a lot of people anyway. When you find that little corner of interest you feel you can call your own you get pretty defensive… or offensive. Even if no one is really attacking you. Even if the companies really don’t have it in for you.

Music might be a little different. Because music reaches a little deeper and can affect outlook, dress, attitudes, and a host of other things on a more fundamental level than other interests. It is possible for other pastimes to have that effect, literature and manga/anime come to mind, but with music it is common for one’s lifestyle to be thematically tied. This has also led to very real persecution. If you wear another music-influenced lifestyle openly into a deeply redneck bar you could have a few problems before you find your way out again. A music fan might get a pass on feeling bent towards certain other subcultures… but they still have no excuse for assholery towards fellow genre citizens. Not known for their subtlety most of the time, metalheads (my most closely-identified musical affiliation) are a real collision of solidarity and ‘you listen to those faggots?’.

I often find myself getting really interested in something only to find it go mainstream soon after. It is kind of a joke among friends of mine actually. Like I’m a barometer for the next big thing. But I’m also a supporter of stuff that flares up into popularity and then dies out. And I’m okay with that. Whatever happens with video games, or kaiju films, or manga, and all that stuff, I STILL have the things that made me a fan in the first place. In the case of some things like music or video games I’ll never own it all. Never ‘complete’ the collection. Even if these things stopped getting made this very second. And no one can take my interest away from me. I might grow out of something… or give up on it. That’s up to me. Arguably, Sony ‘fanboys’ may have helped kill of my beloved Sega consoles, but I can still play those consoles. I can buy more games for them. Nothing changes the fact that, for me, they are great machines.

On a gaming forum, I asked for some definitions of ‘hardcore’ versus ‘casual’. The battle between these two extremes has permeated message boards, magazines, conversation… all levels of video game discourse. I can’t pick up a gaming periodical that doesn’t have some mention of this issue. It seems to mostly center around the Nintendo wii and DSi and the manufacturer’s strategy of really reaching beyond the dependable core game audience. The fear is that all this catering to the so-called casual gamer is diluting the resources needed for companies to continue to produce the games ‘true’ gamers really want. There was some good points made about how the definition of ‘hardcore’ and ‘casual’ have probably changed in common usage, and whether people on said forum actually self-identify as ‘hardcore’ themselves. Ironically, as I’ve found in discussions on music or lifestyle or tabletop wargaming, or any fandom, most discussers eschew labels’themselves or FOR themselves, but don’t actually have too much of a problem applying them to other people… usually toward the negative if their ire has been raised.

And that brings me around to my real main point again. I guess I’m at a loss as to why our ire does get raised most of the time. I mean, if someone personally insults you, fair enough. But whether Sony is out to screw you with the PSPgo and its new software system… what does it matter? Don’t buy it! Your world won’t end!

I remember reading on some Nintendo site a while back: ‘its like I’ve always said, Nintendo just wants your money, and they’ll do what they have to to screw you’.

Like you’ve ALWAYS said? How much fucking mind time do you spend contemplating Nintendo and its corporate ways? Newsflash! Nintendo and all other companies that SELL something are out to make money. Sometimes they do it in a ‘good way’ and sometimes the do it in a ‘bad way’. It is subjective at any give time when a marketing move is good or bad. The beauty of our consumer society is that you can vote with your dollar. Don’t like it? Don’t buy it. Particularly on these elective entertainment ‘fanboy’ pursuits. If your geek object fades away into obscurity because it just isn’t marketable to the legion of tasteless fucks, you will live. I'd like to assume that 'like I've always said' is hyperbole on the part of the writer, but you still have to wonder just how many times they have actually come 'round to that topic, and if it is just as cathartic now as the first time they typed it?

I spent a lot of years working for Games Workshop, a magnet for nerds and fanboys feeling betrayed by marketing decisions. My time there really gave me an appreciation for what company staff really feel and go through when they have to deal with rabid fandom. I will never say a bad word about my time with GW. I loved it there, and I still love the company and the people I worked with. How often will you read THAT on the internet, GW gamers? You don’t really know what the hell is going on inside a company to bring it to the decisions in makes. While I worked there you wouldn't believe the 'truth' I heard from gamers supposedly in-the-know about what my own company was doing. They'd walk up to me at conventions and say 'is the reason you changed the models for blah-blah army because the sculptor has a heroin habit? That's what GW staffer 'X' told me!'. WTF NERD?!

Not all the decisions will be good ones, but seeing a place have to pay its employees, provide insurance, ensure safety, stay in budget, satisfy customer service, etc etc. can really open your eyes.

I don’t actually think there is anything wrong with geeking out over stuff. Or making your pastimes important. If you don’t let it rule your whole life, obsessing over the ephemera of such-and-such can be fun. And a real social rallying point… or a social disaster depending on how you handle it. Context people. Not everyone wants to know the details of your 42nd level monk/thief. But these things don’t REALLY matter. Not next to the loss of life in a terrorist bombing, or a child being diagnosed with cancer. Now if someone goes on a message board for supporting cancer victims and says ‘fuck malignant lymphoma’ I am not going to say a word.

This whole ‘blog is about being hardcore about this thing or that. I’ve spewed out a lot of words here. But I’m the last person in the world who’d say any of it is actually important. My perspective isn’t the last word, but gaining some kind of realistic perspective should probably be the goal of anyone who has spent time in a flame war over a video game or feels betrayed by a faceless corporation.

Uh, assuming you didn’t just get fired from there that is. THAT'S important and you might have a case for slagging then.

If whatever you love sells out and gets all shitty. Move on. Make note of it wherever you have to, to whomever you feel, but try not to waste a lot of energy on it. You might need that energy for when your Mom dies in a car accident tomorrow.

I HATE This Thing Sometimes!

I cannot get the spacing right on that last post no matter what I do.

I enter the paragraph breaks over and over again... even exaggerating the hell out of them, putting four or so in where on should do and it STILL will not format the way I want it to.

Forgive me for that last entry being so hard to read. Fuckshithelldamn.

The Price of Power

Chikyuu Boueigun 2

Chikyuu Boueigun 3

In the world of film, there is a continual discussion of sorts as to whether visuals can make a movie, a movie quite apart from the sort of art film where the imagery IS the story or the language of the story. I’m talking about the ‘it was all special effects and no story’ versus ‘it was a great popcorn movie’ debate. More serious film buffs (read that ‘hardcore’, I guess) universally appreciate good special effects and visuals but don’t hinge their enjoyment on them. They are quite happy with modest or even broken effects if other aspects of the film are engaging. Casual viewers may not know, care, or have enough experience to see past the whizzing ships, and roaring dinosaurs to find out a movie blows.

There is an analogous video game debate. The graphically awesome/fucked up gameplay discussion. Usually the issue of who puts a lot of stock in graphics divides down between hardcore and casual (see a later entry for my opinon on this schism, a real can of worms) fans the same way it does with movies. Harcore fans appreciate amazing visuals but don't require them to give a game a chance.

The point of this entry is two games and their respective developers, smaller houses with limited budgets, who had to drop content in order to ramp up the graphics. I’m specifically picking two franchises with very similar games in both the current generation of consoles and the previous generation so there's no question of comparing apples to oranges. They are so similar in fact, that they would better be considered remakes than sequels. But what was gained and what was lost in the remaking?

The Chikyuu Boueigun 3. Over in Japan, the ‘Simple Series’ is a long-running string of games that are budget priced and usually feature uncomplicated gameplay or graphics. They don’t cost much because they don’t have a lot of cash plunked into development. They don’t qualify in the opinion of some marketing department as full-priced games. But they were worth making… or something like that. So there’s a lot of simple puzzle games, or cheapish-looking fighters in the series, but overall it is diverse. Occasionally there’s a breakout title where everything just comes together in spite of the low budget to produce a game that could easily run with the big dogs. The Chikyuu Boueigun is probably the most well-known example… though well-known is kind of overstating things, its still a very niche/cult game. Oneechanbara (Bikini Samura Squad in the USA) is another. The first two volumes of Chikyuu Boueigun were published for the PS2. They got releases in Europe as Monster Attack and Earth Defence Force (yes, with a ‘c’ in ‘defense’) for each chapter respectively. The third installment was released for the Xbox 360 not long after the console first came out. The western title released in Europe and also in the USA was called Earth Defense Force 2017.

As would be expected in a so-called ‘simple’ title, the premise and gameplay are pretty straightforward. You are a member of an elite science/military organization bent on eliminating an alien threat. The version this particular science fiction action staple takes is pretty much lifted whole from all the Ultraman tokusatu shows…where some form of ‘science patrol’ is the human defense against aliens and giant monsters. In these shows they have cool vehicles, and lots of beyond-present-day weapons technology. See also the more recent Godzilla films for the inspiration behind the military chatter and squad tactics. Godzilla Final Wars in particular lends a lot of its aesthetic to the Xbox 360 game—the alien ships in the film are dead ringers. While running around fighting kaiju (giant monsters) and aliens (even in a tank or plane) would usually be suicide (see almost any Godzilla movie) Final Wars equipped its foot soldiers with wicked enough guns to actually take the fight to the monsters and stand a chance. Chikyuu Boueigun gives you THOSE guns.

So you are an 'infantryman' (you can drive a tank, hoverbike, helicopter or walker, but I don’t recommend it typically) with a couple of big-ass weapons blowing the hell out of the aliens and their minions in all three games. That’s all you do. Blow up all the giant bugs, robots, ships, kaiju, flyers, and motherships. There is variety in tactics and terrain, but essentially your job, no matter the mission, is to kill every living thing not natural to this earth. And it is really gosh-damn fun. Repetitive to a degree, but so well done it is hard not to get engrossed. The missions move along quickly, and you cannot employ exactly the same approach, or use the same weapons to get through all of them. As you progress through the game you will get better, more powerful weapons as the enemies get stronger, faster, and more numerous. The viewpoint is third-person, and there is a little reticle in the center of the screen showing where your onscreen self is pointing. The action rarely slows down until the screen is just clogged with enemies, their fire, and explosions.

I’ve not had the opportunity to place the first episode, but my understanding is that the second episode basically retreads the same ground but with a lot of improvements. That's what the hop from second to third game was supposed to do as well.

I have a lot of play time in on Chikyuu Boueigun 2. A remake would have to be pretty badass to top that game. Seeing the trailers for said remake, one could tell the play specifics were pretty much the same… and that the graphics were amazing! Trailers can, of course, be misleading, but what was shown was really encouraging. If you’d played the PS2 one you knew what you were in for… only bigger and more shiny!

Alas, all was not as hoped. The trailers concentrated on the images that were absolutely awesome—the newly designed alien ships and walkers, and the new monster. These things are pretty intricate and have a new red-glow-and-chrome scheme quite different from the 50’s B-movie aliens from episode 2. A new aesthetic for the Xbox/PS3 generation, sure. Once you actually play the game though, it is pretty apparent the new chrome aliens are where almost all the money went. The rest of the game looks pretty much like the PS2 chapter, apart from better resolving textures and buildings that collapse with a few more polygons. The ants and spiders, the most common enemies, are almost exactly the same. I wasn’t really expecting the polygon count to go through the roof. There are tons of enemies and shit on the screen at once and I can understand simplifying the objects as much as possible to keep the speed up… it was kind of a miracle that the PS2 was even playable at times, though it stuttered like a fat man at a strip club during the most hectic moments. Generally the game does look better. It feels like there’s more variety and detail in the Xbox version and it doesn’t really matter that the game is more crude in places than the trailer let on, if the gameplay is up to snuff.

I didn’t really play the PS2 version using the second available character, the girl with the flight pack, Pale Wing. That’s not even an option in Chikyuu Boeigun 3. She got cut… or replaced with the big bulky (and nearly useless) walker vehicle, depending on how you look at it. The flying ants/wasps also got cut. Now THAT is a drag. The missions in the Xbox 360 game are largely the same as chapter 2, but one of my favorite levels in the earlier game was the one in which the ants had constructed a large hive, rising up out of the ground in the middle of a city that towered over everything around it. Seen in the hazy distance when you first start the mission, you almost can’t believe it… the scale of it. Complete with tiny (from so far away) flying ants circling the upper reaches, and wingless ants crawling up and down the sides. Simply awesome. And your job is to bring that huge bastard down! Xbox 360? No flying ants as I said, and no hive.

The newer game also short shrifts the kaiju in my opinion. In the PS2 game you had a regular-sized dinosaur-ish monster early in the game. Later you fight two little ones and when they die, in the same mission their mother, a beast much MUCH bigger (and spinier-looking, not just a resized object), comes out full of wrath to feed you your delicates. In the new game, you get a level with one 'improved' dinosaur-ish kaiju, then later a level with two of the same. And finally you get a level with one that is the same size, but was upgraded by teh aliens by chopping off its arms and attaching two mega-guns. There's no surprise and no drama to that compared to the first game. The Xbox one has a great sense of scale, as in what it actually shows you... but a lot of the awe is lost. The PS2 one had a great habit of letting you think you've settled in and seen the limit and then hitting you with something even more awesome to throw you for a loop. I have rarely said 'holy shit!' while playing this game. I said that a lot on the PS2 version... and it isn't just because the earlier chapter has me numb and jaded. The Xbox 360 one just doesn't REACH like the PS2 one did. With the little alien ships, the Chikyuu Boueigun 3 has two types, chrome ones and the much sturdier red ones. But they are just 'pallet swaps' really. Same ship two different colors. In Chikyuu Boueigun 2 the harder ships were actually a different design.

The money or time or motivation just wasn't into putting more into other elements apart from the graphics. The game has less, sometimes glaringly so. I don't know if these things were actually CUT, like the elements were planned and then dropped as opposed to never considered. I suspect they WERE dropped. Why wouldn't you have at least the same amount of variety if you could?

They wanted to get the game out early in the Xbox 360's shelf life, maybe because they knew the unsophisticated graphic elements, such as there are, would wear less well as time went on, but this game plays great (and uniquely) and the graphics are the least of your concerns during most of the game, when you are trying to run away and destroy hundreds of enemies at the same time. Looking beyond the polish of those shiny ships, the PS2 version just has more GAME to it, and for me, is the definitive version up to this point. I hope the Xbox 360 version sold well enough for there to be a number four that will improve this game in the same way I understand episode two upgraded the first game.

Shutokou Battle X. Another Xbox 360 'improvement on an older game'. Genki has been making Shutokou Battle (Tokyo Xtreme Racer in the USA) games for ages. See earlier posts about my ongoing love affair with the series. Just about every game console has seen a version of Shutokou Battle. Most more than one. I have most of these, though my collection goes back only as far as the PS1/Saturn era. Apparently there were NES or SNES ones as well. At any rate, the usual pattern for Genki seems to follow getting a new Shutokou Battle game out soon after a console launches, and then make an improved episode later in the console's life. The improvements can be quite radical. The differences between the two Dreamcast episodes or the two PS2 episodes are extreme. The Xbox 360 version in the US lacks the Tokyo Xtreme moniker and goes by the name Import Tuner Challenge.

I don't need to go into quite as much detail about this franchise as I did the Chikyuu Boueigun above. I have not yet bought the Xbox iteration, but I already know from 'net info and trailers what the issue for me will be. Dropped cars.

It almost doesn't matter how whiz-bang the graphics are. Shutokou Battle has never had the slickest visuals in a racer. They would normally be best described as serviceable. And what they usually provide in service is speed. The cars and environments aren't as pretty as the Gran Turismos and Forzas but they have a way more exhilirating sense of tearing down the streets. The games are immersive because of the atmosphere, real-world locations, and rival system, and the graphics are good enough to keep you into the experience. So graphically the Xbox 360 chapter should be the best yet... the bits of it I 've seen certainly live up to that. Even if the visuals aren't the most important aspect, if a system can render more realistic images while keeping the speed up, that can only be a good thing, yeah? Icing on the gameplay cake.

Another aspect the Shutokou Battle games are known for is variety. The DO rival some of the big franchises for sheer number of cars, and outdo most of them for customisation options. Early chapters not so much, though they had quite a few for their day... but the later Dreamcast chapter and the PS2 episodes had well over a hundred car models available.

Is the Xbox 360 version you get less than twenty.

WTF?

This doesn't just have a dampening effect on what you drive. Typically in a Shutokou Battle game ALL the car models of the rivals eventually become available to drive. If the game only has eighteen or so car models TOTAL how much variety can you possible give to the hundreds of rivals in the game? One of the series selling points is the 'real-life' variety of all your opponents. This will cut the variety down to a fraction of its former glory. How many rivals will be driving the same car... I don't care how many aftermarket parts they have to choose from. Ugh.

I think... rather I HOPE.. this is just the typical Genki thing of first game on a console being relatively weak, later game being the real deal. That happened on the PS1, the Dreamcast and the PS2. The later games for each console were monumental improvements. Trouble is, its been a long time since Shutokou Battle X came out, and I don't think there is a sequel on the horizon.

Being a Shutokou Battle completist I'm going to get Shutokou Battle X. But this may be the first time in my life I'll be playing one of these games with an arms-folded attitude of 'impress me motherfucker'. Something's going to have to be impressive to make up for the loss. If it does surprise me somehow, I'll post it and apologise for doubting.

Double Shot of Double Oh Seven.

I've finally watched the two most recent James Bond films, Casino Royale and Quantum of Solace.

As many Bond films as I've seen (though I wouldn't say I'm a huge fan) I couldn't help but enter into viewing these with certain expectations. Expectations to be met by these being Bond films-- the traditions I guess-- and expectations about what this 'reboot' would contain considering the modern penchant for turning series' grim and gritty. Casting Daniel Craig as the new Bond only cemented my prognostication since Craig is NOT the go-to guy for a debonaire, classically handsome, gentleman-spy type. And leave it to trailers to even further establish these expectations. I had been expecting basically the English equivalent to the Bourne films that starred Matt Damon.

And none of that was too far off, now that I've seen them.

Now don't get me wrong. I like the Bourne films just fine. The first one was understandably influential in how the suspense/spy genre was going to be depicted from that point on. Almost revolutionary. The Bond films are not the only ones in the genre to wear the Bourne influence.

The Daniel Craig version's movies basically wind the clock back all the way to Bond's early adventures after just getting his double-oh license, the license to kill. The films have separate characters but essentially describe one large arc and I found the first film a lot stronger as a companion piece to the second. I actually felt the presence of the character of Vesper (Bond's girlfriend) to be quite strong in the second film despite Vesper not actually appearing there.


Negatives out of the way first: It was COMPLETELY what I expected. In addition to that, the big dramatic moment at the end was boldly telegraphed and was in fact a virtual blueprint for how love interests in spy films-- and Bond in particular-- are handled. The only thing that suprised me in the film was that they DID go to the cliched 'betrayal/she had to' plot device. I also found the editing and some of the dialogue left me confused. This is not a huge problem watching the films on DVD, but I had a few too many WTF moments that required a rewind to see what I missed. I'm thinking in a theatrical screening this would be problematic. And this is coming from a guy who watches all kinds of movies with weird accents and dialogue and is a veteran of Hong Kong's most spastic scene cutting practices. On a second viewing I'm sure it would all fall into place, but these films are pretty fast paced and even I found my focused attention missed some stuff. Probably the only plot detail I found totally unconvincing in a 'that's Hollywood' kind of way, was Bond's treatment and recovery from being poisoned in the first film.

Positives: Bond probably need a reboot. While I find it becoming tiresome that almost all 're-imagings' (and film adaptations in general) feel the need to go all grim and gritty, I think in Bond's case it was probably necessary. The series' was absolutely becoming formulaic. And Daniel Craig DOES do a passable job in the various elegant sections when necessary. That shit just doesn't last very long. It is only five minutes work to be playing cards or sipping Dom before he has to bury an elbow in some cronie's eye socket. And that's another positive. More even than the Bourne movies these two films have a hyperkinetic pace. Most movies with that pace really push the believability envelope even for their fantastic premises (Indiana in a fridge, anyone?). Bond only really did it (for me) with the poisoning scene mentioned above. While I want to complain about the fact that Bond has almost no 'regular' adventures so soon after getting his license to kill-- the movies have an intense sort of plot most series wouldn't get to for a few episodes-- it is still true that Bond as an idea really needs no introductions or setups. It struck me as odd that he is already at odds with M and having a serious love interest/betrayal plot in what amounts to his first double-oh adventure, but after viewing them both, I think it was probably the way to go. The movies cram a lot into the running times, but still manage to have some long almost Jackie-chan style chase setpieces. And I liked how Craig's Bond is more physical/visceral but no attempt was made to make him some kind of kung-fu acrobat fighter guy. The films show him calculate the quickest way to cut off his more nimble quarry, and when he gets to them, he just plows through them Krav Maga style with lots of locks, disarms, and short sharp blows to the vitals. Bond has always been on the ruthless side, but Craig's is pretty realistically cold. I was actually moved when he himself finally finds reasons to be emotional himself. This owes a lot to Craig's performance. I don't think any of it was much of a stretch, but he was nuanced in a way that former Bond actors have not been.

Would I recommend them? Yes. If you are a hardcore Bond fan it may be necessary to put some of your fanboy expectations on the back burner and be open-minded. I am not so married to a particular concept of Bond that this was difficult for me, but others might have some work there. The films are a pretty good example of really fast-pacing that is not exhausting in the same way as the Indiana Jones movies or anything starring Vin Diesel or Brendan Frasier.