For the past few days, a stray kitten has been wandering around the neighborhood. Despite my objections, KJ's fed it a few times, so of course it's been hanging out at our place a lot. No, we're not keeping this one; we're well above our limit already. So if anybody wants a cute little black kitten, we can probably catch it for you.
This morning was interesting. I usually leave for work at 10:30 AM. We knew they were repaving our road this week, but we didn't know which parts would be which day. But Murphy's Law has never been very subtle in my life, so I was hardly surprised when I saw the paving truck pass my driveway at 10:28. I drove to the end of my driveway anyway, rolled down my window, and asked the workers how long it would be. They said it would be safe in about five minutes. No problem, I'm usually 10 minutes early to work anyway.
While I sat there, KJ came outside to talk to me (well, to make fun of me), and we heard a meowing. KJ thought it sounded like the meowing was coming from the truck. We searched the truck all over, as well as the surrounding bushes, and we finally found it in the spare tire underneath the truck. I couldn't get my hand in there, and I didn't really have the time to detach the tire from the truck. We tried to coax it out with tuna, but that didn't work, so we had to spray it with a water pistol. That worked. Within seconds, there was a little black blur darting across our lawn.
By that time the paving had dried enough for me to cross, and I still got to work a couple of minutes early. I hate to think what would have happened if the pavers hadn't stopped me, though. She might have stayed in the tire the whole way, crawling out later to find herself in a brand new neighborhood. But I think it's more likely she would have gotten scared and jumped out on the way. So the pavers might have saved her life. Hopefully she won't get run over by the paving truck later today.
Thursday, July 23, 2009
Sunday, July 5, 2009
Tranformers: Revenge of the Fallen
I'm a bit of a snob.
Back in school, I considered myself superior to my classmates, because I thought my tastes were more refined. Okay, granted, my favorite movie was "Aliens", which is by no means an art film. But the fact that I could enjoy plays, musicals, and explosion-free movies, made me think that I was better than other people. I often thought of myself as Diane Chambers from Cheers, the only cultured person in a room full of lowbrow drunks. It wasn't until years later that I realized just how annoying that Diane character was, and that "pretentious" is a bad thing.
But everyone's tastes change when they get older. Some of my formerly-lowbrow friends finally got girlfriends/wives, and amazingly started to enjoy romantic comedies. Or if not enjoy, at least tolerate. Rom-coms are not exactly Shakespeare, but at least it's a step up from only watching action films. Well, a step sideways... either way, it's a broadening of horizons.
Meanwhile my own tastes may be heading in the opposite direction. I still love plays, musicals, and explosion-free movies, but I don't need to pay big bucks for them. I'm happy watching my rom-coms on DVD. But on the big screen, I want explosions. That's the only reason to pay the increasingly outrageous theater prices. I want big special effects, giant monsters, space battles, and plots that defy logic. I want the director to build a gigantic technocratic post-apocolyptic city using nothing but CGI and Blade Runner references... then I want him to destroy it with a cybernetically-enhanced radioactively-mutated Cloverfield-esque psycho-monster.
I'm not sitting there to think. I do enough of that at home. When I pop in a DVD, I have a pause button I can freely use when I want to consider the ramifications of what was just said. If I want a deeper plot, I'll read a book. But in the theater I want to see things too big to fit on a home television. In that respect, Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen is pure win.
I went in to this movie with the knowledge that everyone was blasting it to pieces. Roger Ebert called it "a horrible experience of unbearable length." Well, of course Ebert only likes classy films, right? Except of course he liked the first one. A reviewer from the Bilerico Project (a LGBTQ group) walked out halfway, calling it "Homophobia in Disguise."
Maybe the bad press helped. Maybe it lowered my standards so I didn't expect too much from the movie. I do remember telling KJ a few times going in, "Now this is probably going to suck, so just enjoy the eye candy." But I think I would have liked this anyway.
Transformers: RotF is a fun movie. Now that I've seen it, I agree with everything bad that was said about it. It is too long. It does have touches of racism, sexism, and homophobia. It has a terrible script and some horrible acting. It does not deserve to win any awards.
Why can't more reviewers learn the difference between good and entertaining? I mean, The Exorcist is a wonderful movie. It's wonderfully written, perfectly acted, well-directed, the whole package. It deserves every accolade it's ever received. I'm glad I saw it... in a way, I feel like I'm a better person for having seen it. However, I would rather shave my head with a cheese grater than sit through it again.
I like a lot of good movies, and I like a lot of bad movies. But the most important factor to me is the entertainment factor. The worst thing a movie can do is bore me. A bad script is still interesting if it's really bad. Bad acting can be laughed at. But a boring movie can not be saved, even if it's a masterpiece in every other way.
Anyway, T:RotF is pure Michael Bay, a statement which will immediately either draw you in or send you fleeing. It's filled with slow motion explosions, rock-em sock-em robots, and lots of eye candy. A good portion of it feels more like a tech demo than a movie. It keeps your eyes busy; even when Transformers are just standing around talking, the camera keeps rotating around them just to show off the SFX.
Like the first film, the few minutes of human interactions involve embarrassing parental moments and crude humor, like replacing the first movie's masturbation jokes with humping dogs. They kept a lot of the T1's human cast, even in places where it doesn't make a lot of sense. I mean, does everything happen to the same set of soldiers? Are these same soldiers always the closest ones to whatever is happening in the world? And bringing back John Turturro's character was both contrived and pointless, considering that he was one of the things dragging down the first movie.
Now, the offensive stuff... If you recall, the first Transformers had a few silly stereotypes in there, but spread out through the movie's many characters. Most notable was the over-the-top black kid whose dialogue felt like it was written by a staff of white guys trying to talk street. But other elements were there; the foreign phone operator, the Jive-talking Autobot Jazz, etc. One or two references don't bother me. If you have five African-Americans in a movie, and one of them talks like the "Jive Dudes" from Airplane!, it just means that the character happens to talk like that. But when all non-white characters in a movie perpetuate stereotypes, it seems like the director is a racist.
T2 manages to get it out of its system by wrapping up most of the movie's potential offensive elements into a pair of characters. Mudflap and Skids, collectively known as the Twins. They are silly/stupid gagbots, the kind of comic relief I always hate. Why so many writers think every script needs a Jar Jar, I'll never know. The writers do this to make it more entertaining to little kids, but even when I was a little kid I hated all the Orkos and Snarfs and T-Bobs in my favorite cartoons. But the Twins aren't just stupid klutzes like Jar Jar, they also go out of their way to be offensive in as many ways as possible.
But that's okay, because the movie establishes pretty quickly that the characters are stupid jerks. I don't mind if a stupid jerk is also shown to be a homophobe (for example), because that's like the director saying, "See? Homophobes are idiots." Not to apologize for these characters, but I do think the Bilerico Project article took it too hard. The reviewer complains about the use of "pussy" as a pejorative (sexist), and one of the twins taunting a guy with "you gonna go cry to your boyfriend?" (homophobic).
Both are things I do wish people wouldn't say. Accusing someone of being gay is no longer a relevant insult, because society should be trying to reach the point where being gay is no longer something to be embarrassed about. And calling someone a "pussy" as a synonym for wimp is blatantly sexist, and the insult needs to die right now. But in my experience, both insults seem to come more out of ignorance than malice. See Hanlon's Razor.
Labelling an entire movie as homophobic or racist, just because an idiot says something idiotic? That's going too far. The Twins may technically be "good guys", but they're definitely not good people (er... bots). I'll never understand why people get offended when bad people do bad things in movies. If James Bond nemesis Blofeld were to fire missles across Europe, killing millions of people, the audience would say, "Get him, James!" and keep watching on the edge of their seats. But if Blofeld were to use the "N word", people would picket the movie.
Not that the Twins are the only potentially offensive things in the movie (referring to former Oompa Loompa Deep Roy as a "munchkin" comes to mind), but they do manage to consolidate a lot of potential hatred into one place. Some will accuse the Twins themselves of being racial stereotypes, which is bad, but I don't really see it. They do talk some street, but they also talk some redneck, and overall they're like a conglomeration of idiots from all over the place. Think Jar Jar meets Eminem meets Larry the Cable Guy. In any event, they're dumb but forgivable, pretty much like the rest of the movie.
I probably will not buy this one on DVD, at least not until we have a bigger TV. This movie begs for big screens and insane sound systems. Without that, it's would be like watching roller coaster footage. Not totally un-fun, but it just makes you long for the real thing.
To sum up:
From a quality standpoint, that which you would call a "good movie", I give Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen one out of five stars. From a "totally kick-ass good time" standpoint, I give it four out of five stars. It's up to you which is more important.
Now, bring on GI Joe. It looks even worse, so you know it's going to rock.
Back in school, I considered myself superior to my classmates, because I thought my tastes were more refined. Okay, granted, my favorite movie was "Aliens", which is by no means an art film. But the fact that I could enjoy plays, musicals, and explosion-free movies, made me think that I was better than other people. I often thought of myself as Diane Chambers from Cheers, the only cultured person in a room full of lowbrow drunks. It wasn't until years later that I realized just how annoying that Diane character was, and that "pretentious" is a bad thing.
But everyone's tastes change when they get older. Some of my formerly-lowbrow friends finally got girlfriends/wives, and amazingly started to enjoy romantic comedies. Or if not enjoy, at least tolerate. Rom-coms are not exactly Shakespeare, but at least it's a step up from only watching action films. Well, a step sideways... either way, it's a broadening of horizons.
Meanwhile my own tastes may be heading in the opposite direction. I still love plays, musicals, and explosion-free movies, but I don't need to pay big bucks for them. I'm happy watching my rom-coms on DVD. But on the big screen, I want explosions. That's the only reason to pay the increasingly outrageous theater prices. I want big special effects, giant monsters, space battles, and plots that defy logic. I want the director to build a gigantic technocratic post-apocolyptic city using nothing but CGI and Blade Runner references... then I want him to destroy it with a cybernetically-enhanced radioactively-mutated Cloverfield-esque psycho-monster.
I'm not sitting there to think. I do enough of that at home. When I pop in a DVD, I have a pause button I can freely use when I want to consider the ramifications of what was just said. If I want a deeper plot, I'll read a book. But in the theater I want to see things too big to fit on a home television. In that respect, Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen is pure win.
I went in to this movie with the knowledge that everyone was blasting it to pieces. Roger Ebert called it "a horrible experience of unbearable length." Well, of course Ebert only likes classy films, right? Except of course he liked the first one. A reviewer from the Bilerico Project (a LGBTQ group) walked out halfway, calling it "Homophobia in Disguise."
Maybe the bad press helped. Maybe it lowered my standards so I didn't expect too much from the movie. I do remember telling KJ a few times going in, "Now this is probably going to suck, so just enjoy the eye candy." But I think I would have liked this anyway.
Transformers: RotF is a fun movie. Now that I've seen it, I agree with everything bad that was said about it. It is too long. It does have touches of racism, sexism, and homophobia. It has a terrible script and some horrible acting. It does not deserve to win any awards.
Why can't more reviewers learn the difference between good and entertaining? I mean, The Exorcist is a wonderful movie. It's wonderfully written, perfectly acted, well-directed, the whole package. It deserves every accolade it's ever received. I'm glad I saw it... in a way, I feel like I'm a better person for having seen it. However, I would rather shave my head with a cheese grater than sit through it again.
I like a lot of good movies, and I like a lot of bad movies. But the most important factor to me is the entertainment factor. The worst thing a movie can do is bore me. A bad script is still interesting if it's really bad. Bad acting can be laughed at. But a boring movie can not be saved, even if it's a masterpiece in every other way.
Anyway, T:RotF is pure Michael Bay, a statement which will immediately either draw you in or send you fleeing. It's filled with slow motion explosions, rock-em sock-em robots, and lots of eye candy. A good portion of it feels more like a tech demo than a movie. It keeps your eyes busy; even when Transformers are just standing around talking, the camera keeps rotating around them just to show off the SFX.
Like the first film, the few minutes of human interactions involve embarrassing parental moments and crude humor, like replacing the first movie's masturbation jokes with humping dogs. They kept a lot of the T1's human cast, even in places where it doesn't make a lot of sense. I mean, does everything happen to the same set of soldiers? Are these same soldiers always the closest ones to whatever is happening in the world? And bringing back John Turturro's character was both contrived and pointless, considering that he was one of the things dragging down the first movie.
Now, the offensive stuff... If you recall, the first Transformers had a few silly stereotypes in there, but spread out through the movie's many characters. Most notable was the over-the-top black kid whose dialogue felt like it was written by a staff of white guys trying to talk street. But other elements were there; the foreign phone operator, the Jive-talking Autobot Jazz, etc. One or two references don't bother me. If you have five African-Americans in a movie, and one of them talks like the "Jive Dudes" from Airplane!, it just means that the character happens to talk like that. But when all non-white characters in a movie perpetuate stereotypes, it seems like the director is a racist.
T2 manages to get it out of its system by wrapping up most of the movie's potential offensive elements into a pair of characters. Mudflap and Skids, collectively known as the Twins. They are silly/stupid gagbots, the kind of comic relief I always hate. Why so many writers think every script needs a Jar Jar, I'll never know. The writers do this to make it more entertaining to little kids, but even when I was a little kid I hated all the Orkos and Snarfs and T-Bobs in my favorite cartoons. But the Twins aren't just stupid klutzes like Jar Jar, they also go out of their way to be offensive in as many ways as possible.
But that's okay, because the movie establishes pretty quickly that the characters are stupid jerks. I don't mind if a stupid jerk is also shown to be a homophobe (for example), because that's like the director saying, "See? Homophobes are idiots." Not to apologize for these characters, but I do think the Bilerico Project article took it too hard. The reviewer complains about the use of "pussy" as a pejorative (sexist), and one of the twins taunting a guy with "you gonna go cry to your boyfriend?" (homophobic).
Both are things I do wish people wouldn't say. Accusing someone of being gay is no longer a relevant insult, because society should be trying to reach the point where being gay is no longer something to be embarrassed about. And calling someone a "pussy" as a synonym for wimp is blatantly sexist, and the insult needs to die right now. But in my experience, both insults seem to come more out of ignorance than malice. See Hanlon's Razor.
Labelling an entire movie as homophobic or racist, just because an idiot says something idiotic? That's going too far. The Twins may technically be "good guys", but they're definitely not good people (er... bots). I'll never understand why people get offended when bad people do bad things in movies. If James Bond nemesis Blofeld were to fire missles across Europe, killing millions of people, the audience would say, "Get him, James!" and keep watching on the edge of their seats. But if Blofeld were to use the "N word", people would picket the movie.
Not that the Twins are the only potentially offensive things in the movie (referring to former Oompa Loompa Deep Roy as a "munchkin" comes to mind), but they do manage to consolidate a lot of potential hatred into one place. Some will accuse the Twins themselves of being racial stereotypes, which is bad, but I don't really see it. They do talk some street, but they also talk some redneck, and overall they're like a conglomeration of idiots from all over the place. Think Jar Jar meets Eminem meets Larry the Cable Guy. In any event, they're dumb but forgivable, pretty much like the rest of the movie.
I probably will not buy this one on DVD, at least not until we have a bigger TV. This movie begs for big screens and insane sound systems. Without that, it's would be like watching roller coaster footage. Not totally un-fun, but it just makes you long for the real thing.
To sum up:
From a quality standpoint, that which you would call a "good movie", I give Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen one out of five stars. From a "totally kick-ass good time" standpoint, I give it four out of five stars. It's up to you which is more important.
Now, bring on GI Joe. It looks even worse, so you know it's going to rock.
Tuesday, June 16, 2009
Why Is This So Popular?
And excerpt from "New Moon", second book of the Twilight series (spoilers):
Bella (the vapid twit who has set feminism back 30 years) and Jacob (the Native American werewolf with anger management issues) are being angsty in the kitchen. The phone rings. Jacob answers, even though it's Bella's house and she's just as close to the phone. But it advances the plot better when Jacob answers. It's Edward Cullen (the hearthrob vampire who inspires lust in all teenage girls, despite never doing anything even remotely romantic). However, for some strange reason Jacob believes it is Doctor Carlisle Cullen (Edward's sort-of vampire father), a misunderstanding which furthers the plot. Edward, who is afraid Bella might be dead (a misunderstanding which furthers the plot), asks to speak to Bella's father. Jacob answers, "He's at the funeral" (referring to a different funeral). Edward takes this to mean Bella's funeral, which confirms his belief that Bella is dead (a misunderstanding which furthers the plot). Afterwards, Janet and Chrissy (a pair of unicorns) help Jack (a leprechaun) pretend to be gay so he isn't evicted by Mr. Furley (a zombie), after getting locked in a freezer because of a misunderstanding.
Bella (the vapid twit who has set feminism back 30 years) and Jacob (the Native American werewolf with anger management issues) are being angsty in the kitchen. The phone rings. Jacob answers, even though it's Bella's house and she's just as close to the phone. But it advances the plot better when Jacob answers. It's Edward Cullen (the hearthrob vampire who inspires lust in all teenage girls, despite never doing anything even remotely romantic). However, for some strange reason Jacob believes it is Doctor Carlisle Cullen (Edward's sort-of vampire father), a misunderstanding which furthers the plot. Edward, who is afraid Bella might be dead (a misunderstanding which furthers the plot), asks to speak to Bella's father. Jacob answers, "He's at the funeral" (referring to a different funeral). Edward takes this to mean Bella's funeral, which confirms his belief that Bella is dead (a misunderstanding which furthers the plot). Afterwards, Janet and Chrissy (a pair of unicorns) help Jack (a leprechaun) pretend to be gay so he isn't evicted by Mr. Furley (a zombie), after getting locked in a freezer because of a misunderstanding.
Sunday, May 31, 2009
Metroid Geek
Huzzah! In a couple of months, they're releasing "Metroid Prime Trilogy" for the Wii! All three MP games, on one disc, updated with Wii controls! I'm a huge fan of the Metroid series, but I never owned a Gamecube, so I missed the first two MP games. Yes, I know the Wii can play GC games, but I'm glad I waited anyway, because I love MP3's control scheme.
The original Metroid for the 8-bit NES was one of my first true loves. The first thing I ever heard about the game was the ending. Um... spoiler alert... the main character turns out to be a woman. That would have been enough to sell me in itself - I always like female leads, and Mulan-type plot devices. But then the game threw in dozens of other cool features. You have a cannon for an arm. You can turn into a ball. Exploration. Multiple weapons. Sci-fi setting. I simply had to own the game.
I remember being very into the game's plot. Now, we're talking about a time when some games actually did have well-developed plots, but those plots were only told through the instruction manual. With Metroid, there's a paragraph of text in the opening splash screen, and another paragraph when you beat it. Everything else is up to you to figure out. But the manual had several pages worth of exposition, explaining where the Metroids came from, and why Samus was hired to defeat the pirates. I won't lie, it was fairly cheesy. But I liked it so much at the time that drew my own comic books based on it.
The original Metroid for the 8-bit NES was one of my first true loves. The first thing I ever heard about the game was the ending. Um... spoiler alert... the main character turns out to be a woman. That would have been enough to sell me in itself - I always like female leads, and Mulan-type plot devices. But then the game threw in dozens of other cool features. You have a cannon for an arm. You can turn into a ball. Exploration. Multiple weapons. Sci-fi setting. I simply had to own the game.
I remember being very into the game's plot. Now, we're talking about a time when some games actually did have well-developed plots, but those plots were only told through the instruction manual. With Metroid, there's a paragraph of text in the opening splash screen, and another paragraph when you beat it. Everything else is up to you to figure out. But the manual had several pages worth of exposition, explaining where the Metroids came from, and why Samus was hired to defeat the pirates. I won't lie, it was fairly cheesy. But I liked it so much at the time that drew my own comic books based on it.
*old geezer mode* Kids these days just don't know how easy they have it. I don't know why they even keep printing those gall-darn instruction booklets, nobody reads them any more. Nowadays the plot is laid out in front of you as you play, and even the controls are taught to you one button at a time in the annoying tutorial mode. Why, the first time I played "The Legend of Zelda", I didn't know who Zelda was, what I was looking for, or how to bomb rocks to find secret entrances. And I didn't have no newfangled internet to look it up, either. I had to make do with my intellect, perseverance, intuition, patience, skills, and several hundred dollars worth of Nintendo Power magazines and strategy guides.
Another thing I liked about Metroid's plot was that it reminded me of the Alien movies. (There's a pretty good comparison at this site.) Alien has long been my favorite horror movie, and Aliens my favorite action flick, and of course they never made an Alien 3... seriously, they didn't... don't make me get the hammer... *ahem* Where was I? Okay, so cosmic jellyfish aren't anything like the creations of HR Giger, but there were a few plot similarities that I found entertaining at the time.
It was also one of the first games I played where the sequels formed a coherent storyline. Okay, there was the issue of, "Why doesn't Samus still have all the weapons she gained in the last game?" But I really enjoyed how the first game's ending led to Samus Aran's Metroid extinction mission in the second game, and how the one surviving Metroid at the end of Metroid II set up the plot for Super Metroid. The three make up a perfect trilogy, and any games after that are just a bonus.
Compare to Zelda - the second game was clearly a direct sequel, but what was with the third? The SNES Zelda was an incredible game, but when did it take place? Was it a sequel or a prequel or a remake? There are dozens of Zelda games now, and some of them are sequels to each other, but it seems like they reboot the franchise every third game or so. I hate it when the sequels screw up continuity like that. Like in Tetris - the pieces used to be called Tetrads, but now they're called Tetrominos. I mean, I can't even keep up with the storyline any more. Did the L-piece survive the war? Did the square-shaped piece ever avenge his father's death? For a while there was even a rumor that the straight piece wasn't really straight, but who can keep track any more?
...but anyway...
My take on the Metroid series, in not-quite chronological order:
Metroid (NES) - The game that started it all was really impressive back when it was released. It practically invented a lot of elements that are still being used in games today. It was one of the first side-scrollers to feature exploration instead of just moving to the right. It was one of the first console games made with the intention of NOT beating it in one sitting, instead giving you a password feature for continuing. The idea of a woman in a power-armor spacesuit with arm-cannon... well, the concept screams "Anime", but this was before Japanese animation was really flooding the States, so to me it was a brand new concept. Really, just having a female protagaonist was pretty new to me. Samus is by no means the first female game character, but she was one the earliest female video game badasses. (And I strongly suspect that Ms Pac-Man was actually Pac-Man in drag.)
However, the game itself hasn't really aged well. I love classic side-scrollers, but for me things really took off around 16-bit. I very much appreciate this game for starting the beloved series, but I will probably never play it again without updated graphics. I hate to say it, but the game's universe is better than the game itself. It's fairly damning to admit that I'd rather re-read the instruction booklet than to play the game.
Metroid II (Gameboy) - In many ways better than the first game, but I wish it hadn't been on the Gameboy. It had better play control than the first, and even had improved graphics (which is surprising, considering the system). But with the black & white screen, it was hard to navigate. You couldn't always tell what area you were in, making it difficult to know where to go next. This problem was compounded by the lack of visible screen area. Even the updated version for Gameboy Color didn't improve things much.
Super Metroid (SNES) - IMO, the best video game of all time. Spot-on-perfect play control. The best graphics 16-bit had to offer. Lots of areas to explore, tons of weapons and items to find, and most importantly it was FUN. I do have one complaint, however... there was one special move, where you could bounce off of walls, that was too difficult to pull off. It was made worse by the fact that there was one area you could not pass without using this move. With enough tries you will make it, and once you do, you never have to do it again. But it's tedious, and is an unfortunate black mark on what could have been history's only 100% perfect game.
Metroid Fusion (GBA) - This didn't wow me, but it was nice after all this time to play another side-scrolling Metroid game. Regarding graphics and play control, it's probably every bit as good as Super Metroid, but I didn't really care for the set-up. The way it herds you around different sections of the space station make the areas feel too much like levels, giving the whole game a more "video-gamey" feel. The exploration is still there, but it's just a little too controlled. Enjoyable, if forgettable.
Metroid: Zero Mission (GBA) - This did wow me, but only because I'm such a Metroid geek. Zero Mission is a remake of the first Metroid game, but with SNES-style graphics, better play control, and actual exposition. I thought it was a little short, but a lot of handheld games feel too short to me. My only real regret is that with the release of the DSi (which no longer plays GBA games), that Zero Mission is effectively off the market. I hope it turns up again for another system, perhaps as a two-pack with Fusion. Or maybe they could alter the graphics enough to look good on a TV, and release it for Wii's Virtual Console.
Metroid Prime Pinball (DS) - I'm going to pretend this did not happen.
Metroid Prime Hunters (DS) - A beautiful game considering it's on a handheld system, but unfortunately marred by a complicated play control system. The game actually gives you two completely different control setup options, probably because they realized neither one was very good. Hunters is intended to be played online against other players, so the 1-player mode feels tacked on. However, the online mode is rough on beginners, since you will undoubtedly find yourself in a deathmatch against a pro. So you have to play through the bland single player mode just to learn the controls, in the hopes that you won't get creamed quite as quickly in the deathmatches.
Metroid Prime 1 & 2 (Gamecube) - I'll know in a couple of months.
Metroid Prime 3 (Wii) - A truly wonderful game that makes me wish I was still a kid. The controls feel complicated at first, but within 30 minutes you're Samus Aran. Your right hand is your arm cannon, and you use it just like she does. The nunchuck moves you, and the setup works so well, I never again want to play a First-Person Shooter using two joysticks. Even mouse/keyboard pales in comparison. There is simply no FPS control setup that works more intuitively than the Wiimote/Nunchuk combo. It's like your right hand is playing a "Duck Hunt"-style light gun game, while your left hand is exploring 3D worlds. It might take a little more practice for the stubborn, but it really pays off.
That said, Metroid Prime 3 is not a perfect game. It has some long (but creatitively-disguised) load times here and there, and some of the puzzles are too difficult, and sometimes you feel really lost if you get off track. Some of its features are designed for anal-retentive collectors, those who are determined to probe every square inch of the game. (I used to be one of those people.) And, towards the end, it actually features an escort mission. What idiots put that in? Don't they know that gamers got together a couple of years ago and officially declared escort missions to be the worst thing in the history of the universe?
But despite the flaws, it's still an incredible gaming experience. My nostalgic side still prefers Super Metroid, but the games are so different it's apples-and-oranges.
Related games - Metroids also appeared in Kid Icarus (under the name Komayto), while Samus has had cameos in games like Tetris (NES version), Super Mario RPG, and the Smash Bros series. I mention this only to show off my geekiness.
Minor rant, I was a bit disappointed when Nintendo finally settled on a design for Samus Aran's out-of-suit appearance. They'd featured the occasional unhelmeted drawing before, in places like Nintendo Power or the "Captain N" comic books, but it wasn't until much later that they seemed to pick one version and stick with it. What they picked - a blonde bombshell who looks like a Playboy model - is disturbing to me. She looks more like a "Dead Or Alive" fighter than a space bounty hunter. Is this the most creative they could get? Did they have to make her every 15-year-old's sterotypical vision of perfect beauty? Shouldn't she look tougher? Did she even have to be human? At least they could have made her a cyborg. Don't those watermelon-sized bosoms make it difficult to squeeze into that armor?
In the original game's instruction booklet, they say, "...but his true form is shrouded in mystery." Of course this is foreshadowing that she turns out to be female, but couldn't they have played with that a little? Given her a reason to be mysterious? Sure, her second-quest appearance in the original game looked like a normal human, but the sprite didn't have a lot of detail; they still had the leeway to make her more interesting. I don't hate her because she's beautiful. I just wish Nintendo understood she didn't have to be.
But whatever. I still love the series, even if I don't agree with every decision or play every game. It's going to be a long wait till August.
Update: Shortly after posting this blog, I learned of "Metroid: Other M" that was previewed at E3. Looks awesome, and I can't wait to find out more. I am a little worried about the play control, but I'm sure they'll pull it off.
Another thing I liked about Metroid's plot was that it reminded me of the Alien movies. (There's a pretty good comparison at this site.) Alien has long been my favorite horror movie, and Aliens my favorite action flick, and of course they never made an Alien 3... seriously, they didn't... don't make me get the hammer... *ahem* Where was I? Okay, so cosmic jellyfish aren't anything like the creations of HR Giger, but there were a few plot similarities that I found entertaining at the time.
It was also one of the first games I played where the sequels formed a coherent storyline. Okay, there was the issue of, "Why doesn't Samus still have all the weapons she gained in the last game?" But I really enjoyed how the first game's ending led to Samus Aran's Metroid extinction mission in the second game, and how the one surviving Metroid at the end of Metroid II set up the plot for Super Metroid. The three make up a perfect trilogy, and any games after that are just a bonus.
Compare to Zelda - the second game was clearly a direct sequel, but what was with the third? The SNES Zelda was an incredible game, but when did it take place? Was it a sequel or a prequel or a remake? There are dozens of Zelda games now, and some of them are sequels to each other, but it seems like they reboot the franchise every third game or so. I hate it when the sequels screw up continuity like that. Like in Tetris - the pieces used to be called Tetrads, but now they're called Tetrominos. I mean, I can't even keep up with the storyline any more. Did the L-piece survive the war? Did the square-shaped piece ever avenge his father's death? For a while there was even a rumor that the straight piece wasn't really straight, but who can keep track any more?
...but anyway...
My take on the Metroid series, in not-quite chronological order:
Metroid (NES) - The game that started it all was really impressive back when it was released. It practically invented a lot of elements that are still being used in games today. It was one of the first side-scrollers to feature exploration instead of just moving to the right. It was one of the first console games made with the intention of NOT beating it in one sitting, instead giving you a password feature for continuing. The idea of a woman in a power-armor spacesuit with arm-cannon... well, the concept screams "Anime", but this was before Japanese animation was really flooding the States, so to me it was a brand new concept. Really, just having a female protagaonist was pretty new to me. Samus is by no means the first female game character, but she was one the earliest female video game badasses. (And I strongly suspect that Ms Pac-Man was actually Pac-Man in drag.)
However, the game itself hasn't really aged well. I love classic side-scrollers, but for me things really took off around 16-bit. I very much appreciate this game for starting the beloved series, but I will probably never play it again without updated graphics. I hate to say it, but the game's universe is better than the game itself. It's fairly damning to admit that I'd rather re-read the instruction booklet than to play the game.
Metroid II (Gameboy) - In many ways better than the first game, but I wish it hadn't been on the Gameboy. It had better play control than the first, and even had improved graphics (which is surprising, considering the system). But with the black & white screen, it was hard to navigate. You couldn't always tell what area you were in, making it difficult to know where to go next. This problem was compounded by the lack of visible screen area. Even the updated version for Gameboy Color didn't improve things much.
Super Metroid (SNES) - IMO, the best video game of all time. Spot-on-perfect play control. The best graphics 16-bit had to offer. Lots of areas to explore, tons of weapons and items to find, and most importantly it was FUN. I do have one complaint, however... there was one special move, where you could bounce off of walls, that was too difficult to pull off. It was made worse by the fact that there was one area you could not pass without using this move. With enough tries you will make it, and once you do, you never have to do it again. But it's tedious, and is an unfortunate black mark on what could have been history's only 100% perfect game.
Metroid Fusion (GBA) - This didn't wow me, but it was nice after all this time to play another side-scrolling Metroid game. Regarding graphics and play control, it's probably every bit as good as Super Metroid, but I didn't really care for the set-up. The way it herds you around different sections of the space station make the areas feel too much like levels, giving the whole game a more "video-gamey" feel. The exploration is still there, but it's just a little too controlled. Enjoyable, if forgettable.
Metroid: Zero Mission (GBA) - This did wow me, but only because I'm such a Metroid geek. Zero Mission is a remake of the first Metroid game, but with SNES-style graphics, better play control, and actual exposition. I thought it was a little short, but a lot of handheld games feel too short to me. My only real regret is that with the release of the DSi (which no longer plays GBA games), that Zero Mission is effectively off the market. I hope it turns up again for another system, perhaps as a two-pack with Fusion. Or maybe they could alter the graphics enough to look good on a TV, and release it for Wii's Virtual Console.
Metroid Prime Pinball (DS) - I'm going to pretend this did not happen.
Metroid Prime Hunters (DS) - A beautiful game considering it's on a handheld system, but unfortunately marred by a complicated play control system. The game actually gives you two completely different control setup options, probably because they realized neither one was very good. Hunters is intended to be played online against other players, so the 1-player mode feels tacked on. However, the online mode is rough on beginners, since you will undoubtedly find yourself in a deathmatch against a pro. So you have to play through the bland single player mode just to learn the controls, in the hopes that you won't get creamed quite as quickly in the deathmatches.
Metroid Prime 1 & 2 (Gamecube) - I'll know in a couple of months.
Metroid Prime 3 (Wii) - A truly wonderful game that makes me wish I was still a kid. The controls feel complicated at first, but within 30 minutes you're Samus Aran. Your right hand is your arm cannon, and you use it just like she does. The nunchuck moves you, and the setup works so well, I never again want to play a First-Person Shooter using two joysticks. Even mouse/keyboard pales in comparison. There is simply no FPS control setup that works more intuitively than the Wiimote/Nunchuk combo. It's like your right hand is playing a "Duck Hunt"-style light gun game, while your left hand is exploring 3D worlds. It might take a little more practice for the stubborn, but it really pays off.
That said, Metroid Prime 3 is not a perfect game. It has some long (but creatitively-disguised) load times here and there, and some of the puzzles are too difficult, and sometimes you feel really lost if you get off track. Some of its features are designed for anal-retentive collectors, those who are determined to probe every square inch of the game. (I used to be one of those people.) And, towards the end, it actually features an escort mission. What idiots put that in? Don't they know that gamers got together a couple of years ago and officially declared escort missions to be the worst thing in the history of the universe?
But despite the flaws, it's still an incredible gaming experience. My nostalgic side still prefers Super Metroid, but the games are so different it's apples-and-oranges.
Related games - Metroids also appeared in Kid Icarus (under the name Komayto), while Samus has had cameos in games like Tetris (NES version), Super Mario RPG, and the Smash Bros series. I mention this only to show off my geekiness.
Minor rant, I was a bit disappointed when Nintendo finally settled on a design for Samus Aran's out-of-suit appearance. They'd featured the occasional unhelmeted drawing before, in places like Nintendo Power or the "Captain N" comic books, but it wasn't until much later that they seemed to pick one version and stick with it. What they picked - a blonde bombshell who looks like a Playboy model - is disturbing to me. She looks more like a "Dead Or Alive" fighter than a space bounty hunter. Is this the most creative they could get? Did they have to make her every 15-year-old's sterotypical vision of perfect beauty? Shouldn't she look tougher? Did she even have to be human? At least they could have made her a cyborg. Don't those watermelon-sized bosoms make it difficult to squeeze into that armor?
In the original game's instruction booklet, they say, "...but his true form is shrouded in mystery." Of course this is foreshadowing that she turns out to be female, but couldn't they have played with that a little? Given her a reason to be mysterious? Sure, her second-quest appearance in the original game looked like a normal human, but the sprite didn't have a lot of detail; they still had the leeway to make her more interesting. I don't hate her because she's beautiful. I just wish Nintendo understood she didn't have to be.
But whatever. I still love the series, even if I don't agree with every decision or play every game. It's going to be a long wait till August.
Update: Shortly after posting this blog, I learned of "Metroid: Other M" that was previewed at E3. Looks awesome, and I can't wait to find out more. I am a little worried about the play control, but I'm sure they'll pull it off.
Wednesday, May 20, 2009
Moderation In All Things
I am a very middle-of-the-road person. There are very few subjects that I really care passionately about, which is why it seems like I rant about the same things over and over on this blog. I generally distrust people who have strong opinions about anything, because in my experience, the people who are fanatic about something are the ones who haven't thought it through from both sides. So if there's one type of people I truly despise, it's "all-or-nothing" people. Which I have decided to call "AONs." The people who either love something or hate it, with no room for neutrality.
* AONs are the ones who review movies (video games, books, etc) online, and rate everything "Perfect" or "Sucks". Look, IMDB has 10 stars for a reason, people. Not everything can be 1 star or 10 stars. What's worse is when they actually type out their reasons, and between their bad spelling and broken sentences, you can barely make out, "It was a pretty good movie, but the hero wore a shirt I didn't like, so the movie sucked." Heck, poke around Amazon enough, and you'll come across the occasional bad review for seller-related reasons. ("I didn't like this book because I paid for 2-day shipping and it took two weeks to get it.")
So I never believe any perfect review, whether it's perfectly good or perfectly bad. Either direction has me immediately thinking "internet fanboy", and searching for more professional reviews. For example, one friend of mine called "The Day After Tomorrow" a bomb because he doesn't believe in global warming. Now, there are a lot of reasons that it was a bad movie (and a lot of reasons I thought it was fun anyway), and I wouldn't have minded if he'd blasted the movie for it's script, acting, and yes, even the general plot. But the science in the movie (and most movies) is "movie science" that is only relevant in that movie's universe. Hating it for your own personal beliefs is like saying, "I hated Star Wars because I don't believe in lightsabers." My brother hated "Face-Off" because he couldn't swallow the idea of people switching faces. Okay, but you knew that going in. If you didn't want to suspend you disbelief that far, then you should have gone to a different movie. But at least it wasn't the only reason he disliked the movie, and he didn't call it a total bomb based on that one issue.
* AONs are the ones who keep fad diets alive. The ones who say, "I read lettuce is good for you, so I'm going to eat nothing but lettuce for two months." Or "I know salt is bad, so I'm going to completely eliminate salt from my diet" (forgetting that a small amount of salt is required for survival). I'm not a nutritionist - or even in shape - but I firmly believe that a healthy diet is one that doesn't go to extremes. Well, unless you consider "absolutely no cyanide" an extreme.
* AONs are also the ones who say things like, "America: Love it or leave it." I think I've already established how much I hate that attitude, but for those reading my blog for the first time: America was founded on the concept of "power to the people." It was founded by people who were sick of living under the rule of monarchs, where the opinion of the average citizen meant nothing. Now, there are some countries where citizens have less power, and "if you don't like it, leave" is a perfectly valid attitude there (assuming it's a country you can leave). But in America, the rule is supposed to be, "If you don't like a law, work to change it." It's these overly-patriotic morons who should be forced to leave, as they obviously don't really love America if they know so little about her.
These dirtbags also like to say, "If you're not for us, you're against us." Well, I guess if you're so stupidly intolerant that you can't allow someone to have a neutral opinion about something, then I really am against you. But that doesn't mean I'm going to join your opponent's camp either. Can't you just leave some of us alone?
Similar to this is, "If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem." Seriously? Let's look at that.
Okay, problem: Ants keep getting into your house.
Parts of the problem: You're leaving bread crumbs on your counter. There's a gap under your screen door. The unusual amount of rain has caused ants to seek higher ground.
Parts of the solution: Ant poison/baits. Cleaning the house, and keeping it clean. Sealing all entry points. Adopting a pet anteater.
Things that are neither part of the solution, nor part of the problem: Ear muffs. Wildabeast. France. Boxer shorts. The Star Wars Trilogy. William Henry Harrison. Cufflinks. The GEICO Gecko. Mad Magazine. Marilu Henner. Christmas Tree Ornaments. 12-sided dice. Airplanes. That rainbow-wigged "John 3:16" guy. Earlobes. Doonesbury. Communists. C3P0. Bluetooth headsets. Winged monkeys. Rick Astley. Uri Geller. The Korean War. That episode of Friends where they switch apartments. Cowboy Bebop. MySpace. Barney Rubble. Barney Fife. Barney the purple dinosaur. The Monkees. Henna tattoos. Street Fighter II. Frankenstein. The Brady Bunch. Wi-Fi. Tennis. Velociraptors. Bruce Campbell. Captain America. Nude bungee jumping. The Atari 2600. Daleks. Analog watches. Danny Elfman. Velcro shoes. Drow. Plush animals. Gay marriage. White water rafting. A partridge in a pear tree.
Clearly, there are some things/people that are not part of the solution or the problem. If you're having so much trouble identifying neutral things, then perhaps you're part of the problem.
* AONs are also the ones who are hopelessly devoted to their boyfriends/girlfriends right up until the day they completely hate them. What is the deal with that? You know two people for years, maybe even before they got together. You know damn well they're both great people. But when they break up, they each become villains in the other's eyes. And of course, you're stuck taking sides, because obviously to sympathize with one brings ire from the other.
I don't play that game. Unless I already strongly disliked one of them, I simply won't take sides.
Don't you have a setting between love and hate? Can't you just realize that you're both still good people, who just happen to be incompatible mates? Why make things worse for both of you by demonizing the other? Why? Well, because as a human being, it's in your egotistical nature to think, "I'm perfect, so if someone can't get along with me, they must be evil." I'm sorry, but it doesn't work that way. You can both be perfect and still be wrong for each other. Quit it, you're making your friends uncomfortable. Try to remember what you first liked about them, and use that as a basis for a friendship. That doesn't mean you still have to go out for pizza together, but it would be nice if you could at least find a way to be in the same room together without fighting.
I'm not saying there aren't evil people out there. Duh. If it turns out one of the breaker-uppers had been beating the other, then of course I would be first in line to take the victim's side. But in most cases I let these things work themselves out. I'm not going to risk fueling a friend's hatred, agreeing with all their insults, only to have an awkward backfire scenario when they inexplicably get back together. I'll be glad to play sympathetic ear for either side, but I refuse to get in the middle. And if you play the "It's them or me" card, I'm choosing them. Because a real friend wouldn't ask me to choose, and therefore you've chosen for me.
Granted, I'm not as angry about the break-up thing as I am about other AON people. I realize that people are emotional creatures, and therefore I can forgive some stupidity during stressful times. But I still refuse to take sides.
* AONs are the ones who review movies (video games, books, etc) online, and rate everything "Perfect" or "Sucks". Look, IMDB has 10 stars for a reason, people. Not everything can be 1 star or 10 stars. What's worse is when they actually type out their reasons, and between their bad spelling and broken sentences, you can barely make out, "It was a pretty good movie, but the hero wore a shirt I didn't like, so the movie sucked." Heck, poke around Amazon enough, and you'll come across the occasional bad review for seller-related reasons. ("I didn't like this book because I paid for 2-day shipping and it took two weeks to get it.")
So I never believe any perfect review, whether it's perfectly good or perfectly bad. Either direction has me immediately thinking "internet fanboy", and searching for more professional reviews. For example, one friend of mine called "The Day After Tomorrow" a bomb because he doesn't believe in global warming. Now, there are a lot of reasons that it was a bad movie (and a lot of reasons I thought it was fun anyway), and I wouldn't have minded if he'd blasted the movie for it's script, acting, and yes, even the general plot. But the science in the movie (and most movies) is "movie science" that is only relevant in that movie's universe. Hating it for your own personal beliefs is like saying, "I hated Star Wars because I don't believe in lightsabers." My brother hated "Face-Off" because he couldn't swallow the idea of people switching faces. Okay, but you knew that going in. If you didn't want to suspend you disbelief that far, then you should have gone to a different movie. But at least it wasn't the only reason he disliked the movie, and he didn't call it a total bomb based on that one issue.
* AONs are the ones who keep fad diets alive. The ones who say, "I read lettuce is good for you, so I'm going to eat nothing but lettuce for two months." Or "I know salt is bad, so I'm going to completely eliminate salt from my diet" (forgetting that a small amount of salt is required for survival). I'm not a nutritionist - or even in shape - but I firmly believe that a healthy diet is one that doesn't go to extremes. Well, unless you consider "absolutely no cyanide" an extreme.
* AONs are also the ones who say things like, "America: Love it or leave it." I think I've already established how much I hate that attitude, but for those reading my blog for the first time: America was founded on the concept of "power to the people." It was founded by people who were sick of living under the rule of monarchs, where the opinion of the average citizen meant nothing. Now, there are some countries where citizens have less power, and "if you don't like it, leave" is a perfectly valid attitude there (assuming it's a country you can leave). But in America, the rule is supposed to be, "If you don't like a law, work to change it." It's these overly-patriotic morons who should be forced to leave, as they obviously don't really love America if they know so little about her.
These dirtbags also like to say, "If you're not for us, you're against us." Well, I guess if you're so stupidly intolerant that you can't allow someone to have a neutral opinion about something, then I really am against you. But that doesn't mean I'm going to join your opponent's camp either. Can't you just leave some of us alone?
Similar to this is, "If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem." Seriously? Let's look at that.
Okay, problem: Ants keep getting into your house.
Parts of the problem: You're leaving bread crumbs on your counter. There's a gap under your screen door. The unusual amount of rain has caused ants to seek higher ground.
Parts of the solution: Ant poison/baits. Cleaning the house, and keeping it clean. Sealing all entry points. Adopting a pet anteater.
Things that are neither part of the solution, nor part of the problem: Ear muffs. Wildabeast. France. Boxer shorts. The Star Wars Trilogy. William Henry Harrison. Cufflinks. The GEICO Gecko. Mad Magazine. Marilu Henner. Christmas Tree Ornaments. 12-sided dice. Airplanes. That rainbow-wigged "John 3:16" guy. Earlobes. Doonesbury. Communists. C3P0. Bluetooth headsets. Winged monkeys. Rick Astley. Uri Geller. The Korean War. That episode of Friends where they switch apartments. Cowboy Bebop. MySpace. Barney Rubble. Barney Fife. Barney the purple dinosaur. The Monkees. Henna tattoos. Street Fighter II. Frankenstein. The Brady Bunch. Wi-Fi. Tennis. Velociraptors. Bruce Campbell. Captain America. Nude bungee jumping. The Atari 2600. Daleks. Analog watches. Danny Elfman. Velcro shoes. Drow. Plush animals. Gay marriage. White water rafting. A partridge in a pear tree.
Clearly, there are some things/people that are not part of the solution or the problem. If you're having so much trouble identifying neutral things, then perhaps you're part of the problem.
* AONs are also the ones who are hopelessly devoted to their boyfriends/girlfriends right up until the day they completely hate them. What is the deal with that? You know two people for years, maybe even before they got together. You know damn well they're both great people. But when they break up, they each become villains in the other's eyes. And of course, you're stuck taking sides, because obviously to sympathize with one brings ire from the other.
I don't play that game. Unless I already strongly disliked one of them, I simply won't take sides.
Don't you have a setting between love and hate? Can't you just realize that you're both still good people, who just happen to be incompatible mates? Why make things worse for both of you by demonizing the other? Why? Well, because as a human being, it's in your egotistical nature to think, "I'm perfect, so if someone can't get along with me, they must be evil." I'm sorry, but it doesn't work that way. You can both be perfect and still be wrong for each other. Quit it, you're making your friends uncomfortable. Try to remember what you first liked about them, and use that as a basis for a friendship. That doesn't mean you still have to go out for pizza together, but it would be nice if you could at least find a way to be in the same room together without fighting.
I'm not saying there aren't evil people out there. Duh. If it turns out one of the breaker-uppers had been beating the other, then of course I would be first in line to take the victim's side. But in most cases I let these things work themselves out. I'm not going to risk fueling a friend's hatred, agreeing with all their insults, only to have an awkward backfire scenario when they inexplicably get back together. I'll be glad to play sympathetic ear for either side, but I refuse to get in the middle. And if you play the "It's them or me" card, I'm choosing them. Because a real friend wouldn't ask me to choose, and therefore you've chosen for me.
Granted, I'm not as angry about the break-up thing as I am about other AON people. I realize that people are emotional creatures, and therefore I can forgive some stupidity during stressful times. But I still refuse to take sides.
* People call me indecisive, and I'm still debating on whether they're right. I'm pretty sure I'm leaning towards maybe. In a way I'm an AON myself, but instead of choosing side A or B, I take my neutrality to the silliest of extremes. Despite my earlier implication, there's really nothing wrong with having a solid opinion. A solid opinion is still a comfortable distance away from a fanatical dogma, and as long you recognize others' rights to their opinions, you're probably doing well.
The bottom line is, don't be afraid of neutrality. Instead of defining yourself by how close you are to the left or the right, try considering how far you are from the middle. There is nothing in this world so perfect that it has to be the only thing. You don't always have to choose between leader or follower, and not everyone can be classified as hunter or prey. While it's fun to root for your favorite football team, it's not traitorous to cheer when the other team makes a fantastic play. Some movies are "fairly decent", and some are "merely okay." There is no one food nutritionally complete enough to fulfill your entire diet. There are two sides to every story, and there can be good people on both sides of a war. It's not wrong to be secure in your beliefs, but you must re-examine them now and then or else you're believing it because that's what you've always believed, and that's never a good reason to believe something, believe me.
I think.
Sunday, May 10, 2009
Star Trek Origins: Enterprise
(a.k.a. Lens Flare: The Motion Picture)
This weekend KJ and I saw Star Trek, and we both loved it.
As much as I love nearly all versions of Star Trek, I agree with J. J. Abrams that it was greatly in need of a reboot. But given the nature of Star Trek fans, I was afraid that such an endeavor would be doomed to failure. No, not because it was an odd-numbered Star Trek film (besides, this is zero, not eleven). It's just that sci-fi fanboys love to hate things... I've often said that the difference between a sci-fi fan and a regular person is that the regular person enjoys sci-fi.
The worst is that continuity-obsessed Trekkies insist on incorporating the silliness of the 60's series with the more modern productions. Look, nothing against the original series. It was ground-breaking and ahead of its time. But for me, Star Trek started with Next Gen. When the last TV series, "Enterprise" hit the air, gazillions of fans were livid, because they felt it screwed up the original series continuity. They were wrong, of course, for three reasons:
1. The show made great efforts to explain continuity. Especially in the final season, where they even explained the Klingon head-bumps thing.
2. The Original Series, revolutionary though it was, was full of continuity errors of its own. Not their fault, they just didn't know it was going to take off, so they didn't bother keeping track of everything. But in any event, I prefer to think of the OS as a retelling of events, like a holodeck recreation based on the captain's logs, rather than a perfect video of the story.
3. Enterprise takes place first, so anything it says takes precedence over the original series. It's also 1000 times better, so again it takes precedence over the original series. So if there's any continuity discrepencies between the two, Enterprise automatically wins, and the OS can suck it. My blog, my logic, so there.
I loved Enterprise (well, except for the Xindi season), so it pisses me off to no end that people who consider themselves Trekkies wouldn't even give it a chance. I feel a bit vindicated by the fact that there's an Enterprise reference in the new movie.
So some people will hate the new Star Trek movie no matter what, but I think it will please everyone who is actually capable of being pleased. I'll try to say this without spoilers, but they managed to both break continuity while maintaining continuity, in a way that should please both newcomers and life-long Trekkers. KJ, who knows the Original Series much better than I do, spent the first half of the movie counting the "mistakes" where it didn't agree with the 60's. But thanks to a bit of time-travel and its butterfly effect, every difference is explainable. At the end - okay, I can't avoid spoilers - it's a given that the entire TV series would have been affected in subtle ways... I can't wait to re-watch the DVDs and see if anything's changed. ;)
The casting is spot-on. My favorite was Simon Pegg as Scotty, though I wish he'd had more screen time.
Well, there was a bit of unevenness, IMO, in that some of the players seemed to be trying new takes on their characters, while others were trying to emulate the originals as much as possible, almost to the point of parody. For example, McCoy sometimes seemed like the actor was doing a comedic impression of the original character, while Sulu didn't even attempt to lower his voice. There were a few times when it felt like a bunch of fans playing dress-up for a convention, but most of the time I was able to lose myself in the movie.
I was afraid Kirk would be written as a total badass, someone who can accomplish anything just because he's the goddamn Kirk. But while he does have the "Never give up, never surrender" attitude parodied in Galaxy Quest, he actually gets his ass kicked in most of his fights.
This movie is a bit less family-friendly than previous Treks, but it was time. The squeaky-clean attitude was holding them back, and keeping them from being able to compete with stuff like Battlestar Galactica. To be honest, I've always preferred optimistic futures (like Star Trek) to pessimistic (post-apocalyptic, etc) sci-fi. Mainly because I like to believe that while humankind will always have conflict, overall things will get better and better. Otherwise, what's the point? Shows like the new Battlestar just depress me. But even so, Trek has usually been a little too clean. I think the new movie represents the best balance so far.
I really hope this takes off, and gets lots of sequels. I wish the movie was the pilot for a new TV series, which rewrites the original continuity. But I seriously doubt that's a possibility. Oh well, I'll take this new Trek however I can get it.
Abrams buffs: In addition to the standard Slusho reference, there's also a creature that, while not exactly like the Cloverfield monster, at least looks like it belongs in the same universe. And a question... I've never watched Lost. Is Abrams always so obsessed with lensflare? Every computer, every star, anything with light, makes bright streaks across most of the movie. It's pretty, but it gets a bit distracting after a while.
This weekend KJ and I saw Star Trek, and we both loved it.
As much as I love nearly all versions of Star Trek, I agree with J. J. Abrams that it was greatly in need of a reboot. But given the nature of Star Trek fans, I was afraid that such an endeavor would be doomed to failure. No, not because it was an odd-numbered Star Trek film (besides, this is zero, not eleven). It's just that sci-fi fanboys love to hate things... I've often said that the difference between a sci-fi fan and a regular person is that the regular person enjoys sci-fi.
The worst is that continuity-obsessed Trekkies insist on incorporating the silliness of the 60's series with the more modern productions. Look, nothing against the original series. It was ground-breaking and ahead of its time. But for me, Star Trek started with Next Gen. When the last TV series, "Enterprise" hit the air, gazillions of fans were livid, because they felt it screwed up the original series continuity. They were wrong, of course, for three reasons:
1. The show made great efforts to explain continuity. Especially in the final season, where they even explained the Klingon head-bumps thing.
2. The Original Series, revolutionary though it was, was full of continuity errors of its own. Not their fault, they just didn't know it was going to take off, so they didn't bother keeping track of everything. But in any event, I prefer to think of the OS as a retelling of events, like a holodeck recreation based on the captain's logs, rather than a perfect video of the story.
3. Enterprise takes place first, so anything it says takes precedence over the original series. It's also 1000 times better, so again it takes precedence over the original series. So if there's any continuity discrepencies between the two, Enterprise automatically wins, and the OS can suck it. My blog, my logic, so there.
I loved Enterprise (well, except for the Xindi season), so it pisses me off to no end that people who consider themselves Trekkies wouldn't even give it a chance. I feel a bit vindicated by the fact that there's an Enterprise reference in the new movie.
So some people will hate the new Star Trek movie no matter what, but I think it will please everyone who is actually capable of being pleased. I'll try to say this without spoilers, but they managed to both break continuity while maintaining continuity, in a way that should please both newcomers and life-long Trekkers. KJ, who knows the Original Series much better than I do, spent the first half of the movie counting the "mistakes" where it didn't agree with the 60's. But thanks to a bit of time-travel and its butterfly effect, every difference is explainable. At the end - okay, I can't avoid spoilers - it's a given that the entire TV series would have been affected in subtle ways... I can't wait to re-watch the DVDs and see if anything's changed. ;)
The casting is spot-on. My favorite was Simon Pegg as Scotty, though I wish he'd had more screen time.
Well, there was a bit of unevenness, IMO, in that some of the players seemed to be trying new takes on their characters, while others were trying to emulate the originals as much as possible, almost to the point of parody. For example, McCoy sometimes seemed like the actor was doing a comedic impression of the original character, while Sulu didn't even attempt to lower his voice. There were a few times when it felt like a bunch of fans playing dress-up for a convention, but most of the time I was able to lose myself in the movie.
I was afraid Kirk would be written as a total badass, someone who can accomplish anything just because he's the goddamn Kirk. But while he does have the "Never give up, never surrender" attitude parodied in Galaxy Quest, he actually gets his ass kicked in most of his fights.
This movie is a bit less family-friendly than previous Treks, but it was time. The squeaky-clean attitude was holding them back, and keeping them from being able to compete with stuff like Battlestar Galactica. To be honest, I've always preferred optimistic futures (like Star Trek) to pessimistic (post-apocalyptic, etc) sci-fi. Mainly because I like to believe that while humankind will always have conflict, overall things will get better and better. Otherwise, what's the point? Shows like the new Battlestar just depress me. But even so, Trek has usually been a little too clean. I think the new movie represents the best balance so far.
I really hope this takes off, and gets lots of sequels. I wish the movie was the pilot for a new TV series, which rewrites the original continuity. But I seriously doubt that's a possibility. Oh well, I'll take this new Trek however I can get it.
Abrams buffs: In addition to the standard Slusho reference, there's also a creature that, while not exactly like the Cloverfield monster, at least looks like it belongs in the same universe. And a question... I've never watched Lost. Is Abrams always so obsessed with lensflare? Every computer, every star, anything with light, makes bright streaks across most of the movie. It's pretty, but it gets a bit distracting after a while.
Friday, April 24, 2009
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
