So happy New Year, everyone! On to my pointless ramblings....
This afternoon, my wife, her brother, and I went to see King Kong. I have to admit, I had some pretty high expectations. For the past three years, the Lord of the Rings special extended edition box sets have been very high on my Christmas lists. I think that Peter Jackson is a wizard when it comes to film making, and so I figured that if anyone could breathe life into the original black-and-white Kong, it was him.
Sadly, I'm disappointed. While there was nothing technically wrong with Jackson's Kong, I have to say, it left a sour taste in my mouth.
Why? The length. Three and a half hours. Why the heck did Peter think this movie needed to be that long?
Granted, the original was rather two-dimensional (maybe even one, depending on how you count). It's clear from watching it that no one knew much of anything about apes. It was not politcally correct, and sure, it needed a little emotional subtext. And yes, the old black-and-white's effects are laughable by today's standards. It could stand a good update.
But three and a half hours?
To put it in perspective, my brother-in-law commented afterwards that by the time Adrian Brody, Jack Black, and Naomi Watts find Kong in this version, the original would have been over. There's some perspective for you.
The problem, Mr. Jackosn, is that you lost perspective on why people would go to this movie. We go to see Kong climb the Empire State Building and then get shot off of it. Maybe we go to see him wrestle a few dinosaurs as well. But it's the last scene that's the selling point.
I think what happened was that Jackson has been seduced by the Dark Side of Digital Effects (named in honor of the person who was first seduced by it, George Lucas). Jackson decided that since he could create dinosaurs that were more photorealistic than the ones in Jurassic Park, because he could render hideous bugs the size of schnauzers, because he could recreate a scene from Bambi using an immense ape, he should.
That's the danger of digital effects. When everything is possible, people tend to lose themselves.
It's the same thing that destroyed the Star Wars prequel trilogy. George could suddenly create the rich world that had been banging around in his head. The problem with that was, he tried to substitute that for more traditional and necessary components of movie making like plot and characterization and, dare I say, acting. Instead of getting a gripping story with memorable characters, we got a lot of flashign digital lights and teeth shattering THX loud noises.
Peter Jackson almost crossed into the same territory. Almost. He was able to get some good performances out of Watts, Brody, and Jack Black's eyebrows. He was able to add some subtext to his story that Lucas never got in the prequels. But that doesn't excuse the mammoth length to this monster movie.
There's a handy dictum that today's filmmakers, especially those making big-budget, tentpole blockbusters, should repeat. They should make it their mantra:
Just because I can do it doesn't mean that I should.
If Jackson had kept that in mind, maybe we would have had a trimmer, slimmer, speedier Kong.
Sunday, January 01, 2006
Tuesday, November 29, 2005
Clarifying Dud Remakes
One of my earlier entries suggested that Hollywood should take a chance by remaking duds and trying to get it right. I even specifically singled out The Island and compared it to Parts: The Clonus Horror.
I should clarify something. If you're going to remake a dud, give credit where credit is due. Admit you're remaking a dud, fer cryin' out loud.
In other words, try to avoid this.
I should clarify something. If you're going to remake a dud, give credit where credit is due. Admit you're remaking a dud, fer cryin' out loud.
In other words, try to avoid this.
Monday, November 28, 2005
We've Jumped the Shark? D'oh!
I've thought this before, but I'll say it out loud and on the record:
The Simpsons have jumped the shark. Actually, I think they did so a few years ago.
For those of you unfamiliar with shark jumping, I refer you to this article. I knowit may seem sacriligous for me to say it, but I think they have. It's time for the Simpsons to retire gracefully before they crash and burn.
Let's face it, the Simpsons have had a major impact on our society. I can remember when it first debuted, it was roundly decried as a harbinger of the decline and fall of American society. Christians especially hated it and singled out Bart as a devil in blue pants. I find it ironic, then, that a decade later, when I went to the Seminary, you couldn't walk through the campus during the evening without hearing a Simpsons re-run in somebody's dorm room.
The Simpsons are everywhere. "D'oh!" is even in the dictionary now. Matt Groening has conquered the pop culture world. But I fear that Groening's clan has overstayed their welcome.
I know this is my opinion, and I know it may not be that popular, but if you want to see what I mean, just live out my day today with the Simpsons. It started as I watched last night's new episode, where Lisa is tutored by Milhouse in the Italian language and Marge joins some social circle called the "Cheery Tomatoes" (or something like that).
First of all, both plots were somewhat repetitive. At least, they were to me. Lisa has had a "first love" how many times? At least two or three by my reckoning. Granted, it was about time that Milhouse got his shot, but still, having Lisa getting a crush on anyone at this point has been done before, and done better. Marge joins a club because she doesn't have any friends? Ummmm, no. She's had lots of friends. She's been in countless organizations and had all sorts of chums. Sadly, the plots of this week's episode were just stale rehashes of ideas done before.
Then, this evening, I got to watch a classic Simpsons re-run, the "Who Shot Mr. Burns?" episodes. It just drove home the point for me: the Simpsons have jumped the shark. Those two episodes are funnier and more creative than anything they've put on this season.
So let the Simpsons go. Let them go off the air before they really begin to stink up the joint. Let Groening bring back Futurama. Let him come up with something new. Or, if that won't work, try shaking things up a little: let the Simpsons age. Let Bart graduate to the 5th grade. Let Maggie actually speak her first words. What would Lisa be like at sweet 16? How will Homer react to Grandpa's death? It's time to find out. No cartoon series has ever let their stars age before. Maybe the Simpsons could be ground-breaking pioneers in this way.
But whatever the case, let's recognize the plain truth: the sharks have been jumped.
The Simpsons have jumped the shark. Actually, I think they did so a few years ago.
For those of you unfamiliar with shark jumping, I refer you to this article. I knowit may seem sacriligous for me to say it, but I think they have. It's time for the Simpsons to retire gracefully before they crash and burn.
Let's face it, the Simpsons have had a major impact on our society. I can remember when it first debuted, it was roundly decried as a harbinger of the decline and fall of American society. Christians especially hated it and singled out Bart as a devil in blue pants. I find it ironic, then, that a decade later, when I went to the Seminary, you couldn't walk through the campus during the evening without hearing a Simpsons re-run in somebody's dorm room.
The Simpsons are everywhere. "D'oh!" is even in the dictionary now. Matt Groening has conquered the pop culture world. But I fear that Groening's clan has overstayed their welcome.
I know this is my opinion, and I know it may not be that popular, but if you want to see what I mean, just live out my day today with the Simpsons. It started as I watched last night's new episode, where Lisa is tutored by Milhouse in the Italian language and Marge joins some social circle called the "Cheery Tomatoes" (or something like that).
First of all, both plots were somewhat repetitive. At least, they were to me. Lisa has had a "first love" how many times? At least two or three by my reckoning. Granted, it was about time that Milhouse got his shot, but still, having Lisa getting a crush on anyone at this point has been done before, and done better. Marge joins a club because she doesn't have any friends? Ummmm, no. She's had lots of friends. She's been in countless organizations and had all sorts of chums. Sadly, the plots of this week's episode were just stale rehashes of ideas done before.
Then, this evening, I got to watch a classic Simpsons re-run, the "Who Shot Mr. Burns?" episodes. It just drove home the point for me: the Simpsons have jumped the shark. Those two episodes are funnier and more creative than anything they've put on this season.
So let the Simpsons go. Let them go off the air before they really begin to stink up the joint. Let Groening bring back Futurama. Let him come up with something new. Or, if that won't work, try shaking things up a little: let the Simpsons age. Let Bart graduate to the 5th grade. Let Maggie actually speak her first words. What would Lisa be like at sweet 16? How will Homer react to Grandpa's death? It's time to find out. No cartoon series has ever let their stars age before. Maybe the Simpsons could be ground-breaking pioneers in this way.
But whatever the case, let's recognize the plain truth: the sharks have been jumped.
Sunday, November 27, 2005
Competition
I guess I'm not the only one who thinks that they have the least read blog. I did a Google search with that term and came up with at least fifty others that lay claim to the title. I'd like to beg to differ with them all, but then, I do have some readers. Hmmmmm.......
Any suggestions for a new name?
Any suggestions for a new name?
Maybe the Winds are Lonely for a Reason.....
One could easily describe me as a bibliophile. I love books. I can't help myself. I devour them. Tonight I was at a Barnes and Noble, and while checking out, the clerk asked me if I had the membership card. My reply was, "With as many books as I buy, I had better!" I keep joking with Jill that when I become a best-selling author and we build a house somewhere, I'm going to include a massive library so I can display all my books.
The one problem I have, though, is that I'm not what you would call an adventerous reader. I have my favorite authors, and I mostly just read what they write. I've even been known to read the same book five or six times if I like it. I'm also a sucker for franchise books, such as Star Wars novels. It takes a lot for me to be adventerous with my reading.
So a few weeks ago, I decided to stretch my reading legs a little and try a relatively unknown author. I'm a member at Red vs. Blue and skulk around their forums. One thread I subscribe to is "Tips for Writers from Writers". Recently, someone came onto the forum and talked about how they had self-published a fantasy novel entitled The Lonely Winds.
Now, I've always been a little leery of self-publishing. But when I read the glowing reviews on the book's website, complete with a judging form from some self-publishing contest, I was intrigued. I decided I had to give it a shot. I ponied up the twenty bucks and bought a book from a little known author, hoping to be surprised and delighted.
Sadly, I am neither.
Granted, I'm only on page 108 of 447, but I'm willing to bet that unless a miracle occurs or I suffer from brain damage that impairs my ability to judge literature, I'm going to stay unimpressed.
The reason is that B.I. Flight is a horrible author. At least, he is in my opinion. He seems in love with his (admittedly) impressive vocabulary. Unfortuntaely, while he knows large words, he doesn't always seem to know what they mean. He calls things "ironic" that really aren't. He says stuff is "interesting" when it really isn't.
Not only that, but one of his main characters drives me crazy, a man named George.
In the initial pages, George seems to be a highly cultured, intelligent man, one who uses many, many large words in the course of regular conversation. After the first seventy pages, though, George starts to "break character", so to speak, interjecting exclamations like "Great googly moogly!" and "Holy Hand Grenade!" It doesn't ring true to the picture of George that was forming and is quite off-putting.
I think the problem is that Mr. Flight never had access to a real editor. I doubt that the folks at Infinity Publishing did much for him other than take his money.
This may seem cruel and harsh, but it's the way I see things. If B.I. Flight has somehow stumbled into an area of the internet that's less read than his book, I'll apologize if you're offended, but I won't apologize for what I've said. Your novel, while creative, needed a lot more work before it came out in print.
The one problem I have, though, is that I'm not what you would call an adventerous reader. I have my favorite authors, and I mostly just read what they write. I've even been known to read the same book five or six times if I like it. I'm also a sucker for franchise books, such as Star Wars novels. It takes a lot for me to be adventerous with my reading.
So a few weeks ago, I decided to stretch my reading legs a little and try a relatively unknown author. I'm a member at Red vs. Blue and skulk around their forums. One thread I subscribe to is "Tips for Writers from Writers". Recently, someone came onto the forum and talked about how they had self-published a fantasy novel entitled The Lonely Winds.
Now, I've always been a little leery of self-publishing. But when I read the glowing reviews on the book's website, complete with a judging form from some self-publishing contest, I was intrigued. I decided I had to give it a shot. I ponied up the twenty bucks and bought a book from a little known author, hoping to be surprised and delighted.
Sadly, I am neither.
Granted, I'm only on page 108 of 447, but I'm willing to bet that unless a miracle occurs or I suffer from brain damage that impairs my ability to judge literature, I'm going to stay unimpressed.
The reason is that B.I. Flight is a horrible author. At least, he is in my opinion. He seems in love with his (admittedly) impressive vocabulary. Unfortuntaely, while he knows large words, he doesn't always seem to know what they mean. He calls things "ironic" that really aren't. He says stuff is "interesting" when it really isn't.
Not only that, but one of his main characters drives me crazy, a man named George.
In the initial pages, George seems to be a highly cultured, intelligent man, one who uses many, many large words in the course of regular conversation. After the first seventy pages, though, George starts to "break character", so to speak, interjecting exclamations like "Great googly moogly!" and "Holy Hand Grenade!" It doesn't ring true to the picture of George that was forming and is quite off-putting.
I think the problem is that Mr. Flight never had access to a real editor. I doubt that the folks at Infinity Publishing did much for him other than take his money.
This may seem cruel and harsh, but it's the way I see things. If B.I. Flight has somehow stumbled into an area of the internet that's less read than his book, I'll apologize if you're offended, but I won't apologize for what I've said. Your novel, while creative, needed a lot more work before it came out in print.
Tuesday, October 25, 2005
Sunday, October 16, 2005
I've seen the future....
.... and I couldn't be happier!
Okay, confession time. I'm a wrestling fan. Not the Greco-Roman kind either. Professional wrestling. Yes, I'll wait for you to stop laughing before I continue.....
Well, tonight, I saw something that made me a little hopeful. For the first time, I watched "TNA Impact" on Spike TV.
See, I've been losing interest in wrestling. After all, since the WWE bought out the WCW, it's been the only show in town. And sadly, that show has been slowly losing steam. Vince McMahon, the megalomaniac owner of the WWE, apparently didn't pay attention in high school history class about how monopolies, while a seemingly good idea on paper, really don't work in the real world.
The reason why the WWE was on top of its game in the mid- to late-90s was because of the WCW. Vinnie Mac may not want to admit it, but it's true. As any wrestling fan can tell you, for a short time there, the WCW was on top of the wrestling world. It had better ratings, more fans, was making a ton of money, and seemed ready to destroy the WWE (then the WWF. This was before they lost to a panda). That spurred the WWE on to new heights and forced them to compete. The competition made them better.
But now, the WWE has had a few years of no competition, and it's beginning to show. Lackluster storylines, horrible wrestlers who don't know what they're doing getting inexplicable pushes, it's enough to drive a wrestling fan mad.
So that's why I'm so pleased to discover TNA. They're a young upstart company, they don't have as much money as the WWE, and yes, they too have their problems, but what they have going for them is some pretty sweet action. I watched two wrestlers I had never heard of before, Christopher Daniels and Sonjay Dutt wrestle for ten minutes, and they had me on the edge of my seat the whole time because they were so good.
If TNA could get a little more money and could somehow convince Spike TV to put them in a head-to-head slot against the WWE, things could get interesting. I doubt it would ever happen; Spike TV does not have a good history of working with wrestling promotions in the past.
But hey, a wrestling fan can dream, can't he?
Okay, confession time. I'm a wrestling fan. Not the Greco-Roman kind either. Professional wrestling. Yes, I'll wait for you to stop laughing before I continue.....
Well, tonight, I saw something that made me a little hopeful. For the first time, I watched "TNA Impact" on Spike TV.
See, I've been losing interest in wrestling. After all, since the WWE bought out the WCW, it's been the only show in town. And sadly, that show has been slowly losing steam. Vince McMahon, the megalomaniac owner of the WWE, apparently didn't pay attention in high school history class about how monopolies, while a seemingly good idea on paper, really don't work in the real world.
The reason why the WWE was on top of its game in the mid- to late-90s was because of the WCW. Vinnie Mac may not want to admit it, but it's true. As any wrestling fan can tell you, for a short time there, the WCW was on top of the wrestling world. It had better ratings, more fans, was making a ton of money, and seemed ready to destroy the WWE (then the WWF. This was before they lost to a panda). That spurred the WWE on to new heights and forced them to compete. The competition made them better.
But now, the WWE has had a few years of no competition, and it's beginning to show. Lackluster storylines, horrible wrestlers who don't know what they're doing getting inexplicable pushes, it's enough to drive a wrestling fan mad.
So that's why I'm so pleased to discover TNA. They're a young upstart company, they don't have as much money as the WWE, and yes, they too have their problems, but what they have going for them is some pretty sweet action. I watched two wrestlers I had never heard of before, Christopher Daniels and Sonjay Dutt wrestle for ten minutes, and they had me on the edge of my seat the whole time because they were so good.
If TNA could get a little more money and could somehow convince Spike TV to put them in a head-to-head slot against the WWE, things could get interesting. I doubt it would ever happen; Spike TV does not have a good history of working with wrestling promotions in the past.
But hey, a wrestling fan can dream, can't he?
Thursday, October 13, 2005
"Ripped" from the Headlines?
Try "cooked up with ridiculous stereotypes." That's more accurate.
For those of you who don't recognize the title, that's the catchphrase of one of my favorite shows, Law and Order. I've been watching this show for close to eight years now, and I have rarely missed an episode. And while there are a few times when I squirm a little, last night's episode really cheesed me off.
Let me explain why: the writers, deciding to rip something from the headlines: Terri Schaivo. The episode starts out with a very sympathetic husband deciding to remove the feeding tube of his vegitative wife. Outside the hospital stands a rabid group of protesters.
At this point, I thought, "This ain't good. It's too soon, it's too fresh, it's too close to reality. This is going to be bad."
It got worse. Two minutes into the episode, sympathetic hubby died when his car exploded.
By the time the episode was over, it turned out that a "Christian" pastor and the vegitative lady's family had conspired together to kill the husband so that they could keep the woman alive. But that's not what cheesed me off. I realize that pastors aren't perfect (I should know since I am one) and that they, like anyone, are capable of murder. (Case in point)
No, what really upset me about this episode is that every Christian was presented as rabid, hypocritical zealots, people who don't see the hypocrisy evident in killing someone for a "Pro-Life" cause. Every. Single. Last. One. Of. Them.
I doubt the producers or writers of Law and Order will ever stumble on my humble little blog, but if they do, I would like to quote one of my personal heroes, Crow T. Robot from Mystery Science Theater 3000:
BITE ME!
Why? I am a Christian. I am also pro-life. I believe that abortion is not right except in very specific circumstances. I'm sorry if that offends anyone. I believe that all life is a gift from God and should be protected.
That being said, I am not a rabid, bomb-throwing zealot. Killing abortionists, bombing clinics, and then claiming that you're doing the Lord's work is simply ridiculous and unChristian. True pro-lifers understand that. Yes, some morons take it too far, but they are in the extreme minority.
What Law and Order did last night was paint everyone who is Christian and pro-life with a very broad brush and they didn't offer anything to balance the viewpoint. If they had, I doubt that I would have been as angry as I am right now.
Consider: in the past, Law and Order has done episodes regarding environmental terrorism. In those episodes, they have made it clear that the extremists are not spokespeople for mainline environmentalists. They have made it clear that those folks have taken things too far by including characters who speak from a more moderate perspective.
The more moderate perspective was missing from last night's episode, and as a result, I'm feeling a little miffed. I realize that the entertainment industry has a heavy liberal slant. I realize that they can use their little bully pulpit to say whatever they want. First Amendment and all that. I just wish that when they ripped something from the headlines, they would have done so with a little more care.
For those of you who don't recognize the title, that's the catchphrase of one of my favorite shows, Law and Order. I've been watching this show for close to eight years now, and I have rarely missed an episode. And while there are a few times when I squirm a little, last night's episode really cheesed me off.
Let me explain why: the writers, deciding to rip something from the headlines: Terri Schaivo. The episode starts out with a very sympathetic husband deciding to remove the feeding tube of his vegitative wife. Outside the hospital stands a rabid group of protesters.
At this point, I thought, "This ain't good. It's too soon, it's too fresh, it's too close to reality. This is going to be bad."
It got worse. Two minutes into the episode, sympathetic hubby died when his car exploded.
By the time the episode was over, it turned out that a "Christian" pastor and the vegitative lady's family had conspired together to kill the husband so that they could keep the woman alive. But that's not what cheesed me off. I realize that pastors aren't perfect (I should know since I am one) and that they, like anyone, are capable of murder. (Case in point)
No, what really upset me about this episode is that every Christian was presented as rabid, hypocritical zealots, people who don't see the hypocrisy evident in killing someone for a "Pro-Life" cause. Every. Single. Last. One. Of. Them.
I doubt the producers or writers of Law and Order will ever stumble on my humble little blog, but if they do, I would like to quote one of my personal heroes, Crow T. Robot from Mystery Science Theater 3000:
BITE ME!
Why? I am a Christian. I am also pro-life. I believe that abortion is not right except in very specific circumstances. I'm sorry if that offends anyone. I believe that all life is a gift from God and should be protected.
That being said, I am not a rabid, bomb-throwing zealot. Killing abortionists, bombing clinics, and then claiming that you're doing the Lord's work is simply ridiculous and unChristian. True pro-lifers understand that. Yes, some morons take it too far, but they are in the extreme minority.
What Law and Order did last night was paint everyone who is Christian and pro-life with a very broad brush and they didn't offer anything to balance the viewpoint. If they had, I doubt that I would have been as angry as I am right now.
Consider: in the past, Law and Order has done episodes regarding environmental terrorism. In those episodes, they have made it clear that the extremists are not spokespeople for mainline environmentalists. They have made it clear that those folks have taken things too far by including characters who speak from a more moderate perspective.
The more moderate perspective was missing from last night's episode, and as a result, I'm feeling a little miffed. I realize that the entertainment industry has a heavy liberal slant. I realize that they can use their little bully pulpit to say whatever they want. First Amendment and all that. I just wish that when they ripped something from the headlines, they would have done so with a little more care.
Wednesday, August 17, 2005
Welcome to My World!
Okay, so I did it again. I disappeared from the blogging scene. You can chalk it up to my personality. I try something new, and I get obsessed with it. Then I find something new to get obsessed about. This blog was what I was obsessed with months ago, and sometimes I remember to come and update it.
So what's my new obsession? World of Warcraft. That's right. I, like two million other users, have been suckered into the best MMORPG game ever made.
I'll admit, I was a tentative convert. I had played two other MMORPGs in the past, Star Wars Galaxies and, most recently, City of Heroes. In both cases, I wound up canceling my account and selling the software on e-Bay.
With Galaxies, I was one of the beta testers (in Beta 3, so I'm not claiming to be anything special). I fell in love with the idea of being able to live in the Star Wars universe (being a rabid fan of the original trilogy and a devourer of the books), of having my own adventures in a galaxy far, far away. And I have to admit, I had a blast .... for the first six months. After that, though, I hit the wall. I had to start grinding just to reach new levels with my character, a Wookie named Orralyyybecca (which, if you know me in real life, shouldn't surprise you). I had to log on and kill things for no reason other than I needed to to learn a new skill, and it just wasn't fun. Not only that, but at the six month mark, there were still some major bugs that should have been squashed by the development team but weren't. After six months, I pulled the plug and, while I sometimes wonder what's happening (especially after the expansion, Jump to Lightspeed, came out), I never had a burning desire to go back.
With City of Heroes, it wasn't my idea to leave. Not really. See, after burning out on Galaxies, I was wary of going back to a MMORPG. But I read such wonderful things about it, I had to see what it was like to be a superhero in Paragon City. So I ponied up the dough, bought a six month account, and took to the streets. And I have to say, I had a blast again. It was a lot of fun becoming Etz'alel, a brooding superhero who could create illusions in people's minds and control the weather. But then my computer popped a memory card. Suddenly the game couldn't work and I had to send in the tower to be fixed. Going cold turkey made me realize that I could live without it, and so I cancelled my account.
Fast forward to a few weeks ago. I had been reading about World of Warcraft in the magazines. I kept hearing about what a mindblowing game it was. And I have to say, I was tempted. I've played all the Warcraft games except for the expansion pack to Warcraft II, and I have to say, Blizzard, the company behind the games, are geniuses. I knew it would be a good experience to try out WoW. I just wasn't sure.
And then I got a free, 14-day trial in a magazine. I couldn't resist. I installed it and tried it out.
What can I say? I'm a sucker. I'm back into MMORPGs with a vengeance. As a matter of fact, my Paladin, Jensina, just took out a mean ol' ogre named Chok'Sul with the help of a few mages, a druid, and a hunter named Scrimshaw. It was a blast, even if it did take close to an hour and a half and my character died four or five times. I'd do it again (and probably will!).
Might history repeat itself? I'm guessing it will. Just wait for me to become obsessed with something again. But there's a difference this time:
My wife is hooked also.
See, Jill never really understood the allure of these games. She watched me play Galaxies, and I offered to let her try it, but she didn't want to. When I got City of Heroes, I once again offered, and she didn't want to. For some reason, though, she decided she would see what the fuss was about, and the next thing I knew, I had competition for the computer (normally Jill only uses it to check her e-mail or to write papers for a class she's taking). I'll come home from work, and she'll be out slogging through a group of troggs or spiders or something.
I have to say, while sometimes I don't like having to wait my turn to enter the world of Azeroth, it's more fun this way. Jill and I watch each other play and offer advice, moral support, and cheers. As a matter of fact, while I was fighting Chok'sul, Jill kept an eye on my teammates to make sure everyone was doing okay. Maybe the obsession will last a little longer since we're sharing it. I don't know.
So if you're a WoW player and you're on the Moonrunner server, and if someday you run across a dwarf warrior named Morabel or a Night Elf hunter named Adrisa, say "Hi" to my wife and make sure to add, "Welcome to our world!"
So what's my new obsession? World of Warcraft. That's right. I, like two million other users, have been suckered into the best MMORPG game ever made.
I'll admit, I was a tentative convert. I had played two other MMORPGs in the past, Star Wars Galaxies and, most recently, City of Heroes. In both cases, I wound up canceling my account and selling the software on e-Bay.
With Galaxies, I was one of the beta testers (in Beta 3, so I'm not claiming to be anything special). I fell in love with the idea of being able to live in the Star Wars universe (being a rabid fan of the original trilogy and a devourer of the books), of having my own adventures in a galaxy far, far away. And I have to admit, I had a blast .... for the first six months. After that, though, I hit the wall. I had to start grinding just to reach new levels with my character, a Wookie named Orralyyybecca (which, if you know me in real life, shouldn't surprise you). I had to log on and kill things for no reason other than I needed to to learn a new skill, and it just wasn't fun. Not only that, but at the six month mark, there were still some major bugs that should have been squashed by the development team but weren't. After six months, I pulled the plug and, while I sometimes wonder what's happening (especially after the expansion, Jump to Lightspeed, came out), I never had a burning desire to go back.
With City of Heroes, it wasn't my idea to leave. Not really. See, after burning out on Galaxies, I was wary of going back to a MMORPG. But I read such wonderful things about it, I had to see what it was like to be a superhero in Paragon City. So I ponied up the dough, bought a six month account, and took to the streets. And I have to say, I had a blast again. It was a lot of fun becoming Etz'alel, a brooding superhero who could create illusions in people's minds and control the weather. But then my computer popped a memory card. Suddenly the game couldn't work and I had to send in the tower to be fixed. Going cold turkey made me realize that I could live without it, and so I cancelled my account.
Fast forward to a few weeks ago. I had been reading about World of Warcraft in the magazines. I kept hearing about what a mindblowing game it was. And I have to say, I was tempted. I've played all the Warcraft games except for the expansion pack to Warcraft II, and I have to say, Blizzard, the company behind the games, are geniuses. I knew it would be a good experience to try out WoW. I just wasn't sure.
And then I got a free, 14-day trial in a magazine. I couldn't resist. I installed it and tried it out.
What can I say? I'm a sucker. I'm back into MMORPGs with a vengeance. As a matter of fact, my Paladin, Jensina, just took out a mean ol' ogre named Chok'Sul with the help of a few mages, a druid, and a hunter named Scrimshaw. It was a blast, even if it did take close to an hour and a half and my character died four or five times. I'd do it again (and probably will!).
Might history repeat itself? I'm guessing it will. Just wait for me to become obsessed with something again. But there's a difference this time:
My wife is hooked also.
See, Jill never really understood the allure of these games. She watched me play Galaxies, and I offered to let her try it, but she didn't want to. When I got City of Heroes, I once again offered, and she didn't want to. For some reason, though, she decided she would see what the fuss was about, and the next thing I knew, I had competition for the computer (normally Jill only uses it to check her e-mail or to write papers for a class she's taking). I'll come home from work, and she'll be out slogging through a group of troggs or spiders or something.
I have to say, while sometimes I don't like having to wait my turn to enter the world of Azeroth, it's more fun this way. Jill and I watch each other play and offer advice, moral support, and cheers. As a matter of fact, while I was fighting Chok'sul, Jill kept an eye on my teammates to make sure everyone was doing okay. Maybe the obsession will last a little longer since we're sharing it. I don't know.
So if you're a WoW player and you're on the Moonrunner server, and if someday you run across a dwarf warrior named Morabel or a Night Elf hunter named Adrisa, say "Hi" to my wife and make sure to add, "Welcome to our world!"
Friday, July 08, 2005
Here's An Idea For Hollywood
So Jill and I went to see Fantastic Four tonight, and on the way to Mankato, I started thinking about the offerings from Hollywood for this summer. And I know that people have said this before, but why is Hollywood offering us so many remakes and retreads? Just about every movie this summer seems to be a remake of something else. Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, The Dukes of Hazzard, Bewitched, War of the Worlds , The Longest Yard, King Kong (which, I know, comes out in December, but it's still a remake), the list could go on and on and on....
Which makes me wonder. Why on earth would Hollywood keep remaking successful and/or critically acclaimed movies? I know, I know, it's the money and it's really easy to do (I mean, all the heavy lifting like story and plot are out of the way), but it seems to be an awful risk.
I mean, take a look at the flack that Tim Burton's gotten for Charlie. There are those die hard fans of the old film who will probably hate the remake or revisioning or whatever you want to call it. People are crying bloody murder because they're so worried that Burton is going to destroy a classic film, which is always a danger when you tackle any remake.
And really, remaking a successful film is a lose/lose proposition. At least, it seems like it would be to me. First of all, you have to fight to get the rights to the original movie. You have to beg and plead with whoever owns it just to get a crack at it. Then you have to dodge all the critical bullets that will fly your way while you're filming.
Worse, if your remake is a success, I don't think people really give you that much credit. After all, you just built on the shoulders of giants. It wasn't your success, it was because the story was too big or too powerful for you to screw up. And if your remake flops, well then, you're just a double loser because you couldn't succeed where someone else did.
That's why I think Hollywood is going about things all wrong when it comes to remakes. Why remake the classics? Why spend the money to redo something that people love and cherish? (George Lucas, I'm talking to you too!) Why not go out on a limb and, say, redo a flop?
I'm serious! Why not remake the movies that were just horrible to begin with? Instead of remaking Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, why doesn't Tim Burton try to fix Plan 9 From Outer Space ? Instead of redoing a classic, why not try to make the plot of Manos: The Hands of Fate make sense? I mean, Hollywood produces a lot more flops than they do hits each year. Why don't filmmakers try to go back and fix the old flops? If they need a list, they could just buy an episode guide for Mystery Science Theater 3000. That should give you plenty of material to work with. Hundreds of movies, and none of them with any merit whatsoever.
Think about it. Unlike remaking a classic, critically and/or fan acclaimed movie, remaking a dud is a win/win proposition. If your remake is a hit, you get to bask in the adulations of the fans and you'll look like a genius because you were able to make a cinematic turd shine like gold. And if your remake flops, you can just point out that the story sucked the first time around and so it's really not your fault.
Don't believe me? I think someone in Hollywood has already tried this. I keep seeing the trailers for that cloning nightmare movie, The Island, and I have to say, it looks really, really familiar. Maybe because in 1979, some guy made a movie called Parts: The Clonus Horror, about a group of clones that live in an isolated area, kept on hand in case their parts are needed in the real world. If they need to be harvested, they're told they're going to some sort of paradise. Only one of the clones escapes, yada yada yada. Sound familiar now? Someone is trying to do a dud remake. I hope they succeed. I really do.
Hollywood could learn a lesson. C'mon, guys and gals, get with it! Ishtar awaits! Roger Corman's many lousy endeavors need salvaging! Stop taking the easy road, and tackle something challenging.
Just one request from the peanut gallery. Don't mess with Gigli. Some things are just better left dead.
Which makes me wonder. Why on earth would Hollywood keep remaking successful and/or critically acclaimed movies? I know, I know, it's the money and it's really easy to do (I mean, all the heavy lifting like story and plot are out of the way), but it seems to be an awful risk.
I mean, take a look at the flack that Tim Burton's gotten for Charlie. There are those die hard fans of the old film who will probably hate the remake or revisioning or whatever you want to call it. People are crying bloody murder because they're so worried that Burton is going to destroy a classic film, which is always a danger when you tackle any remake.
And really, remaking a successful film is a lose/lose proposition. At least, it seems like it would be to me. First of all, you have to fight to get the rights to the original movie. You have to beg and plead with whoever owns it just to get a crack at it. Then you have to dodge all the critical bullets that will fly your way while you're filming.
Worse, if your remake is a success, I don't think people really give you that much credit. After all, you just built on the shoulders of giants. It wasn't your success, it was because the story was too big or too powerful for you to screw up. And if your remake flops, well then, you're just a double loser because you couldn't succeed where someone else did.
That's why I think Hollywood is going about things all wrong when it comes to remakes. Why remake the classics? Why spend the money to redo something that people love and cherish? (George Lucas, I'm talking to you too!) Why not go out on a limb and, say, redo a flop?
I'm serious! Why not remake the movies that were just horrible to begin with? Instead of remaking Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, why doesn't Tim Burton try to fix Plan 9 From Outer Space ? Instead of redoing a classic, why not try to make the plot of Manos: The Hands of Fate make sense? I mean, Hollywood produces a lot more flops than they do hits each year. Why don't filmmakers try to go back and fix the old flops? If they need a list, they could just buy an episode guide for Mystery Science Theater 3000. That should give you plenty of material to work with. Hundreds of movies, and none of them with any merit whatsoever.
Think about it. Unlike remaking a classic, critically and/or fan acclaimed movie, remaking a dud is a win/win proposition. If your remake is a hit, you get to bask in the adulations of the fans and you'll look like a genius because you were able to make a cinematic turd shine like gold. And if your remake flops, you can just point out that the story sucked the first time around and so it's really not your fault.
Don't believe me? I think someone in Hollywood has already tried this. I keep seeing the trailers for that cloning nightmare movie, The Island, and I have to say, it looks really, really familiar. Maybe because in 1979, some guy made a movie called Parts: The Clonus Horror, about a group of clones that live in an isolated area, kept on hand in case their parts are needed in the real world. If they need to be harvested, they're told they're going to some sort of paradise. Only one of the clones escapes, yada yada yada. Sound familiar now? Someone is trying to do a dud remake. I hope they succeed. I really do.
Hollywood could learn a lesson. C'mon, guys and gals, get with it! Ishtar awaits! Roger Corman's many lousy endeavors need salvaging! Stop taking the easy road, and tackle something challenging.
Just one request from the peanut gallery. Don't mess with Gigli. Some things are just better left dead.
Thursday, July 07, 2005
U.S. to Al Qaeda -- We Give Up!
That's right. Even though I have no authority to do so, I am hereby surrendering the U.S. to al-Qaeda.
I mean, that's what Osama wants us to do, right? That's why he keeps sending his minions out to strike at us. That's why there were these terror attacks in London, right?
(Okay, at this point, we don't know for sure who did it, but given the similarities to other al-Qaeda attacks, I'm not really willing to bet against that)
They keep on striking at us because we're such big bullies and we're messing with the Middle East. Therefore, we should just pull all of our troops out Iraq so it can collapse into anarchic chaos and so extremist imams can set up a ruthless theocracy. We'll call it Taliban West.
I'm sure that's what some of the pundits out there are going to say in light of what happened in London. We should stop provoking the radical Muslim terrorists and try to play nice with them. Get out of Iraq. Leave Afghanistan alone. Stop hunting for Osama. Then we'll all be able to skip off into the sunset together.
I think that's a great idea.
No, I really do! Let's do just that. Let's give the terrorists exactly what they want. We'll get out of Iraq. That should stop all the attacks, right?
Well, no, I suppose not. After all, we're still the Great Satan, partially because we support Israel. So I guess to get them to stop the attacks, we'll have to go back on our word to our allies in the region and break a lot of different treaties and have them fend for themselves. Then they'll like us, right?
I'm guessing the answer will still be no. They'd still consider us the Great Satan since we tend to project our culture throughout the world. We export our movies, our TV shows, our fashions, and oddly enough, people around the world adopt them and imitate us. That's part of the reason why the terrorists don't like us: they think we're corrupting their daughters and a bad influence on their sons. So we'll have to cut everyone off. No more American movies. No more Simpsons re-runs. No more foreign factories making jeans. Then we'll finally have peace, right?
Well ..... maybe not. After all, we'd still be a pretty tolerant country. We'd still allow people to be different heretical religions, to say whatever they want, no matter how blasphemous it is. Our women would still be able to show a scandalous amount of skin. Our churches would still be separate from the state. And to them, that just won't do. The only way they'll be happy and put away their bombs is if everyone in the world believes and dresses and speaks and acts just like them. And until that happens, they're going to want to attack people.
So that's it. If we want to see the violence end, we have to surrender the United States completely. Terrorists, come and get it. We'll let you set up a theocratic Muslim government however you see fit. Women, report to your local town halls so you can get your burqas. The rest of us religious types will have to learn Arabic and get our own copies of the Quran.
And yes, I was being sarcastic. Live with it.
I mean, that's what Osama wants us to do, right? That's why he keeps sending his minions out to strike at us. That's why there were these terror attacks in London, right?
(Okay, at this point, we don't know for sure who did it, but given the similarities to other al-Qaeda attacks, I'm not really willing to bet against that)
They keep on striking at us because we're such big bullies and we're messing with the Middle East. Therefore, we should just pull all of our troops out Iraq so it can collapse into anarchic chaos and so extremist imams can set up a ruthless theocracy. We'll call it Taliban West.
I'm sure that's what some of the pundits out there are going to say in light of what happened in London. We should stop provoking the radical Muslim terrorists and try to play nice with them. Get out of Iraq. Leave Afghanistan alone. Stop hunting for Osama. Then we'll all be able to skip off into the sunset together.
I think that's a great idea.
No, I really do! Let's do just that. Let's give the terrorists exactly what they want. We'll get out of Iraq. That should stop all the attacks, right?
Well, no, I suppose not. After all, we're still the Great Satan, partially because we support Israel. So I guess to get them to stop the attacks, we'll have to go back on our word to our allies in the region and break a lot of different treaties and have them fend for themselves. Then they'll like us, right?
I'm guessing the answer will still be no. They'd still consider us the Great Satan since we tend to project our culture throughout the world. We export our movies, our TV shows, our fashions, and oddly enough, people around the world adopt them and imitate us. That's part of the reason why the terrorists don't like us: they think we're corrupting their daughters and a bad influence on their sons. So we'll have to cut everyone off. No more American movies. No more Simpsons re-runs. No more foreign factories making jeans. Then we'll finally have peace, right?
Well ..... maybe not. After all, we'd still be a pretty tolerant country. We'd still allow people to be different heretical religions, to say whatever they want, no matter how blasphemous it is. Our women would still be able to show a scandalous amount of skin. Our churches would still be separate from the state. And to them, that just won't do. The only way they'll be happy and put away their bombs is if everyone in the world believes and dresses and speaks and acts just like them. And until that happens, they're going to want to attack people.
So that's it. If we want to see the violence end, we have to surrender the United States completely. Terrorists, come and get it. We'll let you set up a theocratic Muslim government however you see fit. Women, report to your local town halls so you can get your burqas. The rest of us religious types will have to learn Arabic and get our own copies of the Quran.
And yes, I was being sarcastic. Live with it.
Friday, June 10, 2005
If I Could Turn Back Time.....
Let me set the scene for you.
It's August of 2003. Jill and I are finishing up our Australian vacation in Adelaide. After about twelve days of being constantly on the go and with less than 24 hours to spend in this final city, we decided that we wouldn't do much site seeing, but instead would take in a movie.
One possible choice was to see American Wedding, the final movie in the American Pie series. The other choice (I'm sure there was more than one, but I can't for the life of me remember what the others were) is an Australian made movie called Danny Deckchair. We had seen a few commercials for it and it looked kind of interesting.
Maybe it was the exhaustion. Maybe we were feeling homesick. We went to see American Wedding and were thoroughly disappointed. If you've seen it, you know why.
Once we were home, I kind of regretted not taking the chance to experience some "native cinema", so to speak. But I just filed it under my impressive list of missed opportunities and went on with my life.
Fast forward to a month or two ago. Jill and I are at Action Video, the local video rental store here in Blue Earth (which also doubles as the 1 hour photo shop and triples as a tanning salon. You gotta love small towns) and what do we find under new releases?
Danny Deckchair! I could hardly believe it. I never thought I would see an Australian movie in an American video store, especially not here in Blue Earth (but, then again, Action Video does have a pretty eclectic selection).
Well, tonight, Jill and I rented Danny, and I have to say, I've been kicking myself. If I could turn back time, I would plop down in Adelaide and whisper in my own ear to forget the Wedding and see Danny instead.
Okay, maybe not. Time travel powers should not be wasted on such frivolous things, but anyway....
If you haven't seen this movie, hunt it down. I guarantee you'll have a good time.
Oh, and if you need extra incentive, consider this: throughout the movie, I kept looking at the lead actress, trying to remember where I had seen her before. I knew it was some sort of sci fi or fantasy movie, some big blockbuster, but I just could not place the face. So I waited until the end credits rolled and wrote down her name, then Googled her (how sad is it that Google has become a verb?).
It turns out that Miranda Otto played Eowyn in The Lord of the Rings movies. She's the one who dispatched the Witch King in the last movie.
So go out and start renting! Let's give this movie the audience it deserves!
It's August of 2003. Jill and I are finishing up our Australian vacation in Adelaide. After about twelve days of being constantly on the go and with less than 24 hours to spend in this final city, we decided that we wouldn't do much site seeing, but instead would take in a movie.
One possible choice was to see American Wedding, the final movie in the American Pie series. The other choice (I'm sure there was more than one, but I can't for the life of me remember what the others were) is an Australian made movie called Danny Deckchair. We had seen a few commercials for it and it looked kind of interesting.
Maybe it was the exhaustion. Maybe we were feeling homesick. We went to see American Wedding and were thoroughly disappointed. If you've seen it, you know why.
Once we were home, I kind of regretted not taking the chance to experience some "native cinema", so to speak. But I just filed it under my impressive list of missed opportunities and went on with my life.
Fast forward to a month or two ago. Jill and I are at Action Video, the local video rental store here in Blue Earth (which also doubles as the 1 hour photo shop and triples as a tanning salon. You gotta love small towns) and what do we find under new releases?
Danny Deckchair! I could hardly believe it. I never thought I would see an Australian movie in an American video store, especially not here in Blue Earth (but, then again, Action Video does have a pretty eclectic selection).
Well, tonight, Jill and I rented Danny, and I have to say, I've been kicking myself. If I could turn back time, I would plop down in Adelaide and whisper in my own ear to forget the Wedding and see Danny instead.
Okay, maybe not. Time travel powers should not be wasted on such frivolous things, but anyway....
If you haven't seen this movie, hunt it down. I guarantee you'll have a good time.
Oh, and if you need extra incentive, consider this: throughout the movie, I kept looking at the lead actress, trying to remember where I had seen her before. I knew it was some sort of sci fi or fantasy movie, some big blockbuster, but I just could not place the face. So I waited until the end credits rolled and wrote down her name, then Googled her (how sad is it that Google has become a verb?).
It turns out that Miranda Otto played Eowyn in The Lord of the Rings movies. She's the one who dispatched the Witch King in the last movie.
So go out and start renting! Let's give this movie the audience it deserves!
Sunday, June 05, 2005
What $20K will buy you....
So I read about this in Entertainment Weekly, and I had to see it for myself:
http://www.panicstruckpro.com/revelations/
That's the weblink for "Star Wars: Revelations," a fan film shot on the East Coast.
First, the bad stuff. The plot is convoluted and, for the most part, well nigh incomprehensible. It took me most of the 40 minute running time to figure out what the heck these people were trying to do. The acting was lamentable. All the Jedi in the movie seemed to come from the "Whiny Anakin" school of acting. Honestly, there wasn't a single actor I wanted to "get behind" and root for. And this may sound insensitive, but they really needed to cast a larger net to find "The Emperor's Hand." For those of us in the know, "The Emperor's Hand" is a sort of assassin introduced by Timothy Zahn in his Thrawn trilogy. Zahn's Emperor's Hand is a lady named Mara Jade. You can see what she looks like here. Very sleek, very stealthy, very deadly. Zhanna, the Emperor's Hand of this movie, was not sleek, didn't appear to be able to sneak up on much of anything, and seemed mildly put out, not lethal. If we're going from a purely Star Wars perspective, this movie didn't add much to the Extended Universe.
But I still liked it. Why? As you watch the movie, keep this one fact in mind: they did this with a budget of $20,000. All the effects, everything, for twenty grand. If that's not worthy of admiration, I don't know what is.
Hollywood, take note! You don't have to spend tons of money. Simplify!
http://www.panicstruckpro.com/revelations/
That's the weblink for "Star Wars: Revelations," a fan film shot on the East Coast.
First, the bad stuff. The plot is convoluted and, for the most part, well nigh incomprehensible. It took me most of the 40 minute running time to figure out what the heck these people were trying to do. The acting was lamentable. All the Jedi in the movie seemed to come from the "Whiny Anakin" school of acting. Honestly, there wasn't a single actor I wanted to "get behind" and root for. And this may sound insensitive, but they really needed to cast a larger net to find "The Emperor's Hand." For those of us in the know, "The Emperor's Hand" is a sort of assassin introduced by Timothy Zahn in his Thrawn trilogy. Zahn's Emperor's Hand is a lady named Mara Jade. You can see what she looks like here. Very sleek, very stealthy, very deadly. Zhanna, the Emperor's Hand of this movie, was not sleek, didn't appear to be able to sneak up on much of anything, and seemed mildly put out, not lethal. If we're going from a purely Star Wars perspective, this movie didn't add much to the Extended Universe.
But I still liked it. Why? As you watch the movie, keep this one fact in mind: they did this with a budget of $20,000. All the effects, everything, for twenty grand. If that's not worthy of admiration, I don't know what is.
Hollywood, take note! You don't have to spend tons of money. Simplify!
Thursday, June 02, 2005
I have to wait a year?!?
I hate it when I have to wait, but I guess I'll have to. It'll be worth it, though, for this:
http://spore.ea.com/
Want to see what I mean? Read on:
http://pc.ign.com/articles/617/617441p1.html?fromint=1
http://spore.ea.com/
Want to see what I mean? Read on:
http://pc.ign.com/articles/617/617441p1.html?fromint=1
Monday, May 30, 2005
Yet Another Disturbing Experience
I'll just let the news story speak for itself:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,11069-1633499,00.html
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,11069-1633499,00.html
Thursday, May 19, 2005
A Disturbing Experience
Like I said in a previous post, I've picked up a new hobby, namely, making movies with The Sims 2. It's been interesting, especially since there's a small but dedicated group of individuals who are obsessed with doing the same thing. We chat about it on a BBS supported by the good folks at EA Games, offer critiques to each other, announce premieres, that sort of thing.
I usually track down the premieres that people announce. I'm always curious to see what others are doing, and sometimes, it helps me figure out what I want to do in the movies that I make. But today, something rather disturbing happened.
A Sims player announced that she had made the "best Sims movie ever." That may sound a little bold, but braggadocio goes with the territory. A few people commented on the movie, talking mostly about technical stuff, but a few commented on how sick and perverted the ending was.
I'll admit, that made me curious.
The film itself did have technical problems, and the plot was very confusing. In a nutshell, this is what happened:
A lady moves in next door to a father and his daughter. The daughter is what we call a "child" Sim, looks to be about five or six years old. The daughter invites the new neighbor over for dinner. The woman accepts. The father explains that he is a widower. At dinner (which the neighbor cooked, not the father for reasons that were never explained), the father and the new neighbor flirt a little after the daughter goes to bed. The new neighbor returns home.
So far, not the best, but not too sick or twisted, right? Keep reading.
The movie continued with a shot of the new neighbor sitting naked on her couch, watching TV. Yes, that's right. Nude. Normally, the Sims covers up nude people (like people who are showering or taking a bath or something like that) with pixelation. There are ways, however, to shut said censoring off and special skins out there that show nudity.
In walks the father. He's in his undies. The new neighbor screams at him, asking what he's doing there.
The next thing you know, the father is naked as well and they're on the couch making out, and the new neighbor is moaning. Use your imagination. Yes, that kind of moaning.
To top it all off, the movie ends by revealing that the little girl is watching her father make out with the new neighbor in the buff and is crying, distraught, and calling for her mommy.
Now, I understand the needs of storytelling, and I know that sinful human beings have sex outside of marriage. There are several things about this movie that disturbed me:
I usually track down the premieres that people announce. I'm always curious to see what others are doing, and sometimes, it helps me figure out what I want to do in the movies that I make. But today, something rather disturbing happened.
A Sims player announced that she had made the "best Sims movie ever." That may sound a little bold, but braggadocio goes with the territory. A few people commented on the movie, talking mostly about technical stuff, but a few commented on how sick and perverted the ending was.
I'll admit, that made me curious.
The film itself did have technical problems, and the plot was very confusing. In a nutshell, this is what happened:
A lady moves in next door to a father and his daughter. The daughter is what we call a "child" Sim, looks to be about five or six years old. The daughter invites the new neighbor over for dinner. The woman accepts. The father explains that he is a widower. At dinner (which the neighbor cooked, not the father for reasons that were never explained), the father and the new neighbor flirt a little after the daughter goes to bed. The new neighbor returns home.
So far, not the best, but not too sick or twisted, right? Keep reading.
The movie continued with a shot of the new neighbor sitting naked on her couch, watching TV. Yes, that's right. Nude. Normally, the Sims covers up nude people (like people who are showering or taking a bath or something like that) with pixelation. There are ways, however, to shut said censoring off and special skins out there that show nudity.
In walks the father. He's in his undies. The new neighbor screams at him, asking what he's doing there.
The next thing you know, the father is naked as well and they're on the couch making out, and the new neighbor is moaning. Use your imagination. Yes, that kind of moaning.
To top it all off, the movie ends by revealing that the little girl is watching her father make out with the new neighbor in the buff and is crying, distraught, and calling for her mommy.
Now, I understand the needs of storytelling, and I know that sinful human beings have sex outside of marriage. There are several things about this movie that disturbed me:
- The fact that the little girl was watching. That was just plain wrong. I don't know what the heck the moviemaker was trying to accomplish with that, but it was sick and very twisted.
- The fact that this movie was little better than porn. I mean, the beginning was okay, even if it was a little disjointed and badly filmed. But the nude make-out scene was too much. It was porn, plain and simple.
- The fact that this pseudo-porn was put on a site that is regularly accessed by children. The Sims 2 is rated for teens, but there are children who post on the BBS all the time. There's no way to limit who watches the movies on the websites in any way, shape, or form. Any kid at any time could just click into this movie and it wouldn't make a difference.
But none of those are enough reason to send me to my blog. To be fully honest, the people who run the BBS were quick to catch it and delete it. No, what disturbs me the most is who made this movie.
It was made by a thirteen year old girl.
Dead serious. According to the girl's website, she is thirteen years old. Does this bother anybody else? It sure as heck bothered me. This means that this girl thought that it was perfectly acceptable to produce what amounted to a pornographic moment and distribute it on the web. It means that she had to secure vocal talent (perhaps even doing it herself) to produce the suggestive moaning. And the fact that she called it the "best movie ever", well, that just makes me wonder what the heck is wrong with our society that we can arrive at this place.
I did what I could. I was one of the people who reported the movie to the people who run the BBS. But I can't help but wonder where her parents were, and what she was thinking. Maybe I'll never know. But I do know that I'll be a little nervous to watch future movies.
The Force Just Wasn't With Him
So last night, my soon-to-be brother-in-law and I went to a 12:01 AM screening of Episode III. And I have to say, not that I've had a little time to digest, I was both satisfied and a little disappointed. The action, as usual, was phenomenal. There were some memorable moments, images that will haunt me for a while (Anakin riding a droid over a lava flow is chief among them), but in the end, Lucas fell short of his ambitious vision.
SPOILER ALERT: Don't keep reading if you haven't seen the movie yet and/or want to be surprised.
For example, the scene where Mace Windu reflects Palpatine's Force lightning back onto him and "disfigures" him was just bad comedy. Especially the way Palpatine was acting. His new looks and snivelling attitude reminded me of Gollum from "Lord of the Rings." All he needed was a ring, a cave, and some dead fish. Granted, that could be an acting problem, but the fact that Lucas left it in and didn't try to fix it and make it dramatic instead of just plain silly, well, that's his fault.
Another example: Darth Vader waking up after being encased in the armor. I'm sorry, but that scene was so conry, you could have produced thirty gallons of ethanol from it! Especially when Vader stands alone and screams, "No!" I'm glad that Lucas included the final scene of Vader and the Emperor at the end of the movie. I wouldn't want my last memory of Vader in a Star Wars movie to be the quasi-dramatic scream.
Lucas also missed some prime story-telling opportunities that could have easily ratcheted up the drama as well. The sad part is, in one case, he tentatively started in a dramatic direction, but then backed off. I thought for sure that we were going to see the Jedi version of "Othello" at one point, with Anakin playing the lead role, Padme as Desdimona, Obi-Wan as Cassio, and Palpatine as Iago. Lucas almost went down that path at one point. Would that he did! It would have been so cool, and would have improved the so-called romantic subplot.
So I have a few suggestions for Mr. Lucas should he ever stumble on the Least Read Blog:
SPOILER ALERT: Don't keep reading if you haven't seen the movie yet and/or want to be surprised.
For example, the scene where Mace Windu reflects Palpatine's Force lightning back onto him and "disfigures" him was just bad comedy. Especially the way Palpatine was acting. His new looks and snivelling attitude reminded me of Gollum from "Lord of the Rings." All he needed was a ring, a cave, and some dead fish. Granted, that could be an acting problem, but the fact that Lucas left it in and didn't try to fix it and make it dramatic instead of just plain silly, well, that's his fault.
Another example: Darth Vader waking up after being encased in the armor. I'm sorry, but that scene was so conry, you could have produced thirty gallons of ethanol from it! Especially when Vader stands alone and screams, "No!" I'm glad that Lucas included the final scene of Vader and the Emperor at the end of the movie. I wouldn't want my last memory of Vader in a Star Wars movie to be the quasi-dramatic scream.
Lucas also missed some prime story-telling opportunities that could have easily ratcheted up the drama as well. The sad part is, in one case, he tentatively started in a dramatic direction, but then backed off. I thought for sure that we were going to see the Jedi version of "Othello" at one point, with Anakin playing the lead role, Padme as Desdimona, Obi-Wan as Cassio, and Palpatine as Iago. Lucas almost went down that path at one point. Would that he did! It would have been so cool, and would have improved the so-called romantic subplot.
So I have a few suggestions for Mr. Lucas should he ever stumble on the Least Read Blog:
- Stop directing human beings. The fact of the matter is, sir, you can't do that. You suck at it. Amidala and Anakin were as wooden in the movie as they were in other movies, but I doubt it's Christensen and Portman's fault. I've seen Portman in "Garden State," and I hear that Christensen does good work elsewhere too. Face facts, Mr. Lucas: you're better suited to putting together flashy CGI special effects. That's okay. You do a good job at it. Leave directing human beings to someone who can.
- Stop writing (especially love scenes). I understand that you probably have some great ideas bouncing around in your skull. That's great. Outline them, and then give them to someone else to turn into a movie script. Face facts: you're just not that good, especially when it comes to romance scenes. Do what you did with the original Trilogy, especially Empire Strikes Back, and people will love your stories again.
Like I said, I doubt he'll ever show up and actually read them, but hey, it felt good to vent.
Tuesday, May 17, 2005
Twice bitten but not too shy
Last night, Jill and I went to Robots and, I must say, that was a good movie. But it's not the most memorable part of the evening for me. No no. The most memorable part of the evening was the trailer for Episode III. I honestly held my breath through the whole thing. After it was done, I was wishing that it was Wednesday (actually Thursday) at 12:01 AM so my soon-to-be brother-in-law Chris and I could be at the midnight screening.
But, at the same time, a sense of foreboding filled me. I mean, I can remember back six or seven years ago when Episode I was coming out. After all, we had been waiting years and years and years and YEARS for the prequels. Myself, I remember watching and rewatching the original Trilogy time after time after time, long enough that I subconsciously memorized all the scripts (I doubt I can recite them now, but you never know). I still remember that fateful Wednesday night, where I preached a sermon using Darth Vader as a metaphor, and then heading to the theater in Birch Run, Michigan, with my friend Michele, anxious to see the new wonder that George Lucas had prepared for us.
And what did I get? A convoluted plot mired in obscure political trickery (I mean, what the heck did the Trade Federation hope to accomplish by blockading Naboo?), disappointing Jedi nonsense (midichlorians? HELLO!), and the bad aftertaste of seeing Anakin Skywalker as a little boy who can't act (at no time should we ever see Darth Vader say, "Yahooo!" I don't care how young he is!). It took me a while, but I finally realized that Episode I was something of a disappointment.
When Episode II came out, I was a little hesitant. Not too much. After all, Anakin wouldn't be played by that snotty kid (whose name I forget and I'd prefer to remain ignorant, thank you very much). We had the promise of the Clone Wars. And so, I entered the theater, hoping that the sour disappointment of Episode I would be erased.
Lucas got it better, but he didn't get it right. Anakin and Padme were stiff and wooden. Based on what I've seen of Hayden Christensen and Natalie Portman in other movies, that wasn't their fault. Perhaps if Lucas had spent more time in film school learning how to direct humans and not so much time drawing droids in the margins of his notes, things would have been better. Plus, you had the really, really, really bad romance between Padme and Anakin. I'm sorry, Lucas should be banned from writing love scenes for life. He just can't do it.
At the same time, though, while Episode II was not everything it could be, it was more than what Episode I was. Lucas spent more time in action sequences, which is where his flashy FX can really shine. And, of crouse, there's Yoda throwing down with Count Dooku. Best surprise of the whole movie.
So here we are. The saga is almost complete. In about 36 hours, we'll finally see the end of the Clone Wars, the creation of Darth Vader, and, I'm told, the birth of Luke and Leia. I should be more excited, but I'm not. Even though the trailer for Episode III was very flashy and made me hold my breath, so did the trailers for I and II. I'm worried that when I leave the theater on Thursday morning at 3 AM, I'll be disappointed and grouchy because Lucas got it wrong again.
But then, when you have to look forward to Palpatine and Yoda throwing down in the Senate Chamber, maybe everything will be all right.
But, at the same time, a sense of foreboding filled me. I mean, I can remember back six or seven years ago when Episode I was coming out. After all, we had been waiting years and years and years and YEARS for the prequels. Myself, I remember watching and rewatching the original Trilogy time after time after time, long enough that I subconsciously memorized all the scripts (I doubt I can recite them now, but you never know). I still remember that fateful Wednesday night, where I preached a sermon using Darth Vader as a metaphor, and then heading to the theater in Birch Run, Michigan, with my friend Michele, anxious to see the new wonder that George Lucas had prepared for us.
And what did I get? A convoluted plot mired in obscure political trickery (I mean, what the heck did the Trade Federation hope to accomplish by blockading Naboo?), disappointing Jedi nonsense (midichlorians? HELLO!), and the bad aftertaste of seeing Anakin Skywalker as a little boy who can't act (at no time should we ever see Darth Vader say, "Yahooo!" I don't care how young he is!). It took me a while, but I finally realized that Episode I was something of a disappointment.
When Episode II came out, I was a little hesitant. Not too much. After all, Anakin wouldn't be played by that snotty kid (whose name I forget and I'd prefer to remain ignorant, thank you very much). We had the promise of the Clone Wars. And so, I entered the theater, hoping that the sour disappointment of Episode I would be erased.
Lucas got it better, but he didn't get it right. Anakin and Padme were stiff and wooden. Based on what I've seen of Hayden Christensen and Natalie Portman in other movies, that wasn't their fault. Perhaps if Lucas had spent more time in film school learning how to direct humans and not so much time drawing droids in the margins of his notes, things would have been better. Plus, you had the really, really, really bad romance between Padme and Anakin. I'm sorry, Lucas should be banned from writing love scenes for life. He just can't do it.
At the same time, though, while Episode II was not everything it could be, it was more than what Episode I was. Lucas spent more time in action sequences, which is where his flashy FX can really shine. And, of crouse, there's Yoda throwing down with Count Dooku. Best surprise of the whole movie.
So here we are. The saga is almost complete. In about 36 hours, we'll finally see the end of the Clone Wars, the creation of Darth Vader, and, I'm told, the birth of Luke and Leia. I should be more excited, but I'm not. Even though the trailer for Episode III was very flashy and made me hold my breath, so did the trailers for I and II. I'm worried that when I leave the theater on Thursday morning at 3 AM, I'll be disappointed and grouchy because Lucas got it wrong again.
But then, when you have to look forward to Palpatine and Yoda throwing down in the Senate Chamber, maybe everything will be all right.
Friday, May 13, 2005
An Imaginary Conversation
A little over a week ago, I was invited to speak at the local high school in a philosophy and world religions class. It was a lot of fun. But I have to admit, it wasn't exactly what I had planned.
See, the student who invited me (actually, students) never really prepped me for what I was going to do. They told me not to prepare anything, and that I should be ready to just answer questions.
So in my mind, I imagined that I would be sitting at the front of the class, facing a "firing squad" of 20+ high school students. A little scary, especially since I was warned that two of the students were atheists or agnostics or something like that and that these two were the most vocal. I was especially nervous since one of them is the son of a local pastor and, in the words of the students who invited me, "knows his Bible very well." It's not that I was worried that he would know more than me, it was just that I was worried the talk would turn into Bible-diving and alienate the rest of the class.
It turns out my fears were unfounded. Three other local pastors were invited to come in as well, and we were divided up into smaller groups. I had a group of all girls, including three Catholics (nothing wrong with that, just commenting). My group was very nice and asked some really good and tough questions.
But I have to admit, as strange as it sounds, I was hoping to talk to Atheist Boy. Especially after this past Wednesday. One of the students who invited me told me that he and A.B. lock horns all the time, and that one of his favorite arguments is that he's not a Christian because of the Crusades and the bad stuff that Christians have done.
I've heard this argument before, and the more I thought about it, I realized what I would say to A.B. if I could. Since I don't know if I'll ever have the chance, I thought I would just post it here:
IMAGINARY CONVERSATION
ME: So you aren't a Christian because of the bad things that Christians have done, like the Crusades, right?
AB: Right. I don't want to be part of a group that has killed or suppressed hundreds of thousands of people while they claim to serve some higher ideal.
ME: That seems pretty logical. I mean, I wouldn't want to either. So when are you renouncing your American citizenship?
AB: What? Why would I want to do that?
ME: Well, you say that you don't want to be part of a group that's killed or suppressed people, right? If we apply that logic to every part of your life, you should quit being an American citizen.
AB: Why would I have to do that?
ME: Just follow my logic for a while:
See, the student who invited me (actually, students) never really prepped me for what I was going to do. They told me not to prepare anything, and that I should be ready to just answer questions.
So in my mind, I imagined that I would be sitting at the front of the class, facing a "firing squad" of 20+ high school students. A little scary, especially since I was warned that two of the students were atheists or agnostics or something like that and that these two were the most vocal. I was especially nervous since one of them is the son of a local pastor and, in the words of the students who invited me, "knows his Bible very well." It's not that I was worried that he would know more than me, it was just that I was worried the talk would turn into Bible-diving and alienate the rest of the class.
It turns out my fears were unfounded. Three other local pastors were invited to come in as well, and we were divided up into smaller groups. I had a group of all girls, including three Catholics (nothing wrong with that, just commenting). My group was very nice and asked some really good and tough questions.
But I have to admit, as strange as it sounds, I was hoping to talk to Atheist Boy. Especially after this past Wednesday. One of the students who invited me told me that he and A.B. lock horns all the time, and that one of his favorite arguments is that he's not a Christian because of the Crusades and the bad stuff that Christians have done.
I've heard this argument before, and the more I thought about it, I realized what I would say to A.B. if I could. Since I don't know if I'll ever have the chance, I thought I would just post it here:
IMAGINARY CONVERSATION
ME: So you aren't a Christian because of the bad things that Christians have done, like the Crusades, right?
AB: Right. I don't want to be part of a group that has killed or suppressed hundreds of thousands of people while they claim to serve some higher ideal.
ME: That seems pretty logical. I mean, I wouldn't want to either. So when are you renouncing your American citizenship?
AB: What? Why would I want to do that?
ME: Well, you say that you don't want to be part of a group that's killed or suppressed people, right? If we apply that logic to every part of your life, you should quit being an American citizen.
AB: Why would I have to do that?
ME: Just follow my logic for a while:
- In the early 19th century, the American people were involved in the brutal subjugation of African slaves. Even though "we hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal," the American government at best ignored, or worst, winked at, the brutalities perpetuated by Americans on African slaves. It was considered politically inexpedient to free the slaves, and so for at least a hundred years, people were treated like property. Even though the abolitionist movement (started primarily by Christians, incidentally) tried to get the Founding Fathers to free the slaves, they refused.
- In the late 19th century, the American people were involved in the brutal annexation of Native American lands, forcing them onto reservations or killing them.
- In the early 20th century, prominent American politicians, such as Teddy Roosevelt, and scientists bought into the pseudo-science known as "eugenics". Eugenics was the belief that society had to regulate how people reproduced to weed out the "undesirable" influences. Policies enacted in many states resulted in the forced streilization of thousands of people, mostly the poor, people from the "wrong" ethnic groups, the mentally and physically handicapped, and so forth. California led the way and sterilized the most people "for the public good." It wasn't until after World War II that eugenics was quietly swept under the rug, and that was because people had seen what the logical conclusion of the movement was, namely, concentration camps.
- As long as we're on World War II, how about the fact that FDR forcibly relocated thousands of Japanese Americans to P.O.W. camps simply because they might be spies?
ME: The list could go on and on and on. All these people did horrible things, and I'd be willing to bet that all of them thought they were serving some sort of higher ideal, namely America. So if you're going to avoid groups that have tainted pasts, you should logically renounce your American citizenship as well.
AB: But Christians have still done some lousy things!
ME: I know that all too well. And yet, I'm still a Christian anyway. You know why? Because as a Lutheran, I understand the tension that all Christians live in. In Latin, it's known as simul justus et peccator, or "saint and sinner at the same time." Christians aren't perfect, and anyone who claims that they are is a liar, plain and simple. The true difference is that Christians are forgiven. That doesn't excuse the horrible things that Christians have done. It's not meant to. It just doesn't seem right to me to judge a whole group of people on the basis of what some idiots did.
AB: Oh.
And, hopefully, that would be the end of that.
Okay. I have to go. I need to head to Mankato to get tickets for "Episode III." I'm really hoping that Lucas did a decent job on this one. If not ... well, if he didn't, at least there won't be any more for him to screw up.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
