Alphabetti Spaghetti

A closer look at Serenity -- Why didn't it save Firefly?

2012-01-30T22:06:00.000Z

After the Fox network cruelly lost all faith in the TV show they'd ordered, gave it no support whatsoever, and coldly watched it die, Firefly fans were heartbroken, but the energy surrounding the show was enough for the almost-impossible to happen: A major feature film was made.

Serenity was creator Joss Whedon's vision, pure and unfiltered (for the most part), without the meddling executives. Unlike Fox, Universal actually wanted to see more Firefly.

The feature film version of Firefly (named, for legal reasons, Serenity after the central ship), was an opportunity for everyone who believed in Firefly to finally prove to everyone, once and for all, that the TV show shouldn't have been cancelled, that the universe did hold widespread appeal. Fans on both sides of the camera hoped that this could be the new Star Wars. Hell, its success might even spawn a TV spin-off... Heh.

Except none of that happened.

Despite garnering critical praise and winning numerous awards, Serenity was a flop at the cinema, and, although DVD sales helped put the movie into the black, they weren't high enough to create interest in a sequel.

Initially there were some grumbles about how the film had been marketed, but after all this time, was that the only reason it failed to set the world alight? Were there flaws within the film itself?

After recently working my through all 14 episodes of the Firefly TV series, and falling in love with it all over again, I viewed the film with fresh eyes, and made a few notes... and yes, I think we have a few problems.

Note: This isn't a "review" of Serenity, it's a highly critical look at its major faults. I'm a huge fan of Firefly, Serenity, and just about everything else Joss Whedon has ever touched.

Best. Opening. Ever.

Serenity has the best 10 minutes opening of any sc-fi film ever made. Better than Star Wars, better than, well, anything. It's smart, clever, attention grabbing, and fast paced. As the opening conceit finishes, we see the title treatment, and a wonderful, lifting score kicks in. It's goosebump city. A portion of the audience has already decided that this film is amazing (I was in that portion). Just as it can't get any better, a chunk of metal falls off the spaceship, and with a quick cut, before we can even laugh, we see the Captain turn to his pilot. "What was that?" And so begins the story proper.

We're introduced to the crew through a long scene without cuts. It's supposed to give us a sense that the ship we're on is "real", and that, after all that jumping around in the previous 10 minutes, we're on solid ground.

I love continuous takes as much as the next continous takes fan, but this one didn't work for a number of reasons. For a start, it doesn't make us feel "safe". It's jumpy, we're pummelled with information, and if anything, it increases the energy. That's all fine, it just doesn't do what Whedon hopes it would.

There's a worse problem with this scene, though, and that's the fact that we don't get all the information we need. This is because it's a one shot. Part of this is due to the ADR work, and part of it is due to the limitations of a one-shot: Dramatic moments do not have much available film language with which to give them any weight. The camera can't suddenly cut to a reaction shot, or close-up. Tools like these can be vital into letting the audience know where to look for the sub-text, and also inform them about what's important, and what's chit chat. It's because of this that the Simon and Mal confrontation doesn't work as well as it should, but there are other problems too. And they're all to do with the introduction of the characters.

Ok, so what's the fallout from this set of problems? The aim of the scene is not fulfulled: We do not know the crew of Serenity.

Unfortunately, that's pretty minor compared to what's coming.

The Chase Sequence

Our first major force of conflict appears, they are known as "Reavers". We don't know anything about them, but in order for the following events to be emotionally intense (and indeed for many moments later in the film to work) the audience has to believe one thing: The Reavers are a very real and very terrifying threat. Even if you're in a group of fully armed war veterans and mercenaries, your best bet is to run away. The audience needs to believe this. The idea of meeting one should haunt every audience members' nightmares. Their visage should have scarred their memories. They should not want to meet them again during the course of the film.

Whedon attempts to sell this necessary fear in a simple (and you might say, classic) way: If all the characters act scared at the mere mention of Reavers, then not only must they be something worth being scared of, but it's left up to the audience to decide exactly why.

This can be a very effective trick as a viewer's imagination will tailor the Reavers' menacing qualities to their own idiosyncratic fears, and they will, if all goes well, create a scarier monster for themselves (and be convinced the film has done it for them, to boot).

This technique relies on a simple human trait: Hysteria. When the human mind has been cajoled into a heightened sense of fear, it takes very little to convince it of tangible threat, and this can be manipulated to great effect, especially by talented horror-film makers.

Unfortunately, when the Reavers appear, the viewer is completely in a comfort zone: A funny bank-heist that's actually going well. There's no real sense of threat, and no reason to believe the characters can't handle anything the universe throws their way. Hell, it's even broad daylight in a populated area.

Our heroes carry guns. The Reavers are apparently too feral for that, but we're never shown how ineffective four people with guns could be against a horde of Reavers. Hell, we never even see a horde of Reavers. We see three.

Not only that, but we don't actually know how tough our characters are. If we'd seen them kick ass, but then act afraid, we may be able to gauge that these foes are a serious threat (this is how they were introduced in the series). But we don't. Our protagonists and have only fought a group of apparent country-bumpkins, and since they've just committed a crime, it's natural to think that they'd like to leave ASAP.

This lack of terror hurts the movie immediately, and is so prevalent that when we see a townsman run towards our gang, begging to be taken with them... My immediate thought was not, "He wants to get away from the Reavers", it was, "Poor guy, stuck on this backwoods world, wants to go on space adventures with some space bandits".

If the Reavers were so dangerous, it could have perhaps been shown by our heroes placing escaping over the retrieval of their much-needed stolen goods. That would have helped me believe that these guys were in serious danger if they didn't escape immediately (and it would have also given Manty and Fango a good reason to stiff Mal and company on their deal -- although that might create other problems (see below)).

Eventually our protagonists escape town with their bounty, and are pursued by Reavers, in what should have been an incredibly exciting sequence, but one that falls prey to exactly the same problems as the infamous "podrace" from The Phantom Menace: No dramatic weight. In the ensuing chase sequence, our heroes are escaping from... what? A bunch of stunt men in make-up? A ship covered in red paint? It's hard to feel emotionally involved because we have no reason to root for the characters, or feel afraid of the pursuers. Also, it's not very well directed, sad to say.

(Joss Whedon is apparently very aware of début directorial short-comings on the film's DVD, admitting he'd completely re-shoot the whole scene if he could.)

The chase's climax is confusingly filmed, too, and we don't feel the much-needed sense of relief when it's over. Neither do we experience a final bit of peril when flaming debris nearly slices Mal in two (this "second shock" trick worked brilliantly in Die Hard, but it didn't work here). For one, the debris in question just looks far too flimsy as it bounces along the deck.

So then we're back on Serenity, with the crew and their ill-gotten gains, and we've learned a lot about the characters and their relationship to one another. That's good. (Watchers of the original series will have note that Mal has returned to his infinitely more interesting "hardened" self from the original pilot.)

The next major scene in the film highlights further problems with Serenity, though.

The Bar Fight

In a bar, that classic Western/sci-fi staple, we learn that the deal has turned somewhat sour. Mal is being forced to give up 15% of his crew's earnings from the last mission, but in an odd editing choice, we're not allowed to hear the justification as to why. A simple few words from his business partners explaining that they're taking the extra percentage simply because they can, would have been all that was needed. I'm guessing that this filmed dialogue, giving much needed information, was cut in order to try and make the viewer focus more on River.

The viewer is wondering what's going on, and why the one interesting plot thread we've been introduced to has been yanked out of earshot, when River gets "activated". The bar fight (that other Western/sci-fi staple) ensues.

Problems ensue.

Although Summer Glau's fighting skills are incredible, they're somewhat lost on the audience once again, by not putting them into an interesting enough context: Why are the people in the bar fighting with her? Why aren't more people trying to escape?

When Luke Skywalker had his scuffle with the ugly man with the death mark on three systems, the rest of the bar acted normally: Avoid a fight, hope it will go away on its own. In Serenity it becomes a Wrestlemania cage fight... for no apparent reason.

Once again there's no sense of danger because the exit appears to be available to everyone, but hardly anyone is shown going for it. If these people want to stay and fight and get their asses kicked by a girl, then that's their problem. Sure, some people try and leave, but the set design never makes us feel as though River is holding people these people against their will: A lot of them seem to be attacking her.

Should we feel bad for them as River is taking them down? Are they all thugs? Do they want to escape? If they want to fight, why do they want to fight? Out if pride? Out of ego? Out of a desire to prove how manly they are? Out of self-defence? For the enjoyment of a battle? To see if they could best her?

This is a shame because the final shot of the fight, Mal slowly putting down his weapon, his heart racing, would have worked much better if it we'd felt he was in danger against his will. Instead we're wondering why he hasn't ran out the bar's open exit.

Also, compare the cantina in Star Wars and the bar in Serenity. The one in Star Wars had a vibe. You expected trouble there. You knew the patrons. They weren't all faceless nobodies. Could anyone say who the patrons of the Serenity bar were? Was it families? Was it henchmen? Was it smugglers and bandits? Was it hard-working, innocent miners? We don't know: They were just more stunt men in generic costumes.

At this point the audience should have had two heart-pounding scenes... and be scared that the Reavers are going to make a return and make them feel uncomfortable again. They should also be scared of River and wonder why Mal has brought her onboard.

The film would have been fine at this point, I think. The subsequent story points would have had the resonance they needed.

There's only one other hiccup before we reach the end: Shepherd Book.

Everyone unfamiliar with Firefly had no idea who the hell he was, and it felt like we should have (I was one of them). The scene with Mal and Book was pointless and weird, and didn't help explain who this man was or why the crew were there. Or what his relationship with them was.

The Ending

The final problem is also very big: The triumph of the protagonists is not something we, the audience, can easily relate to. Consider, once again, the final battle in Star Wars or even The Matrix. When our heroes win, we feel their victory, we feel their triumph. In Serenity, their (most obvious) successes are felt by unknown people. People we don't care about. Our heroes survive, but they also suffered serious losses, and this "down" feeling is what we're left with. Yes, I believe that more people felt and related to Zoe's pain, than Mal or River's salvation.

You big whiner! So you're saying Serenity failed as a movie?

Absolutely not, at least not for fans of the series. Upon watching it an additional time for this blogpost (to make sure I wasn't totally wrong about the problems I'd identified), I noticed that it actually works as a perfect ending for the series itself.

For the first time I saw really Mal's story. And not Mal's story from the beginning of the film, but his story from the beginning of the series. In the very first scene of the series, we watch Mal lose all faith as he has everything he believes in taken away from him, and in the final scene of the film, we see man restored, optimistic about the future, despite what he's endured. (And, aptly enough, the first episode shares the title of the movie.)

This new layer means that the passengers we watched Mal take onboard at the beginning of the series, Simon, River, and Book, actually held the key to his own personal salvation.

In the movie we see Book, ever the counsellor, trying to restore Mal to the man he was. Restore his soul. His dying words to Mal tell us so much; "I don't care what you believe. Just believe it."

Thanks to River, Mal discovers a peice of information that leads to him finally seeing something bigger than himself. By the end of the film he's transformed. He's no longer driven by bitterness and a desire for revenge, he's driven by belief in a worthwhile cause. Something he thinks will help humanity. Something he believes is worth fighting for.

In the process of re-developing his own belief system, and becoming a whole person again, he shatters that of his nemesis, The Operative. (His final words, after Mal tells him he'd better not see him again, "You won't. There is nothing left to see.")

River is also saved by her time on Serenity, finally finding peace at the end of the film thanks, not just to the love of her brother, and the family she's found on the ship, but to Mal for helping her excise her demons (in the original script it's made clear that a large part of her mental problems stem from what she's witnessed about Miranda).

Serenity is Mal's and River's story, of how they saved each other, and if there's ever a sequel, we'll be seeing a different side to them than we've ever seen before.

In this way, it's actually an utterly fantastic and rewarding script.

But...

It took me five watches to see Mal's journey. As a first-time viewer I wasn't left with a sense of joy, or even success, it was pain and loss. Hell, it wasn't even bittersweet. Our losses as a viewer were too great, and the gains too small, too hidden. Joss cut too deeply. And yes, Wash's death is a big part of that. (Interestingly, Whedon justifies his decision on the Serenity Bluray commentary, making the point that if the audience is upset, then it means he did the right thing. The obvious response to that is: Dear Joss, if you killed off Willow, you would probably have to go into hiding. That doesn't mean it's the right thing to do -- it just means you made us care. Signed, Everyone.)

Wouldn't you have just loved the movie even more if Wash and Book survived? I know I would have. And indeed that's exactly what happened in Whedon's original 190 page "kitchen sink" version of the script (available online, Firefly fans!).

That script also featured this wonderful piece of dialogue for Zoe, really helping the audience realise that Mal's salvation is an important part of the story:

SIMON

You were in that same war. But
you live almost like a person
might; you have an actual
relationship — a marriage. You
didn't turn into some... Gorgon...

ZOE

I'm career Army, my whole family
is. I was already in when the war
started. Mal volunteered. He
joined the fight because he
believed. He believed his planet
should be left alone. Believed we
would win if we gave our hearts to
it, that his generals wouldn't lay
down arms while his men were still
dying around him... that God would
help us in our darkest place.

She cinches a knot tight, moves to the next body.

ZOE
(continuing)

See, that's the difference between
Mal and me. All I ever lost was a war.

So, when all is said and done, we finally have a complete understanding as to why we won't be seeing any more of Firefly: Because Fox are a shower of soulless bastards who didn't recognize something special, and subsequently sold us all down the river.

The end.

So you want to go to Hollywood?

2011-09-07T22:32:00.000Z

This questionnaire is something I read on Bruce Campbell's website 10 years ago. I found it so thought-provoking that it has stayed with me all this time.

I recently wanted to show it to a friend but was dismayed to discover it was no longer to be found on the internet. Thankfully, after some jiggery-pokery involving The Wayback Machine (a website hosted over at Archive.org), I was able to retrieve a copy.

I think it deserves to be preserved and, if you've ever entertained notions of working in the dream factory known as Hollywood, contemplated.

I hope you find it as interesting and provocative as I did.

Top tip: There's no wrong answers, so be honest with yourself.

Visit Bruce Campbell at: www.bruce-campbell.com. Also, buy his books!

To all good people contemplating a leap into the frigid waters of the entertainment industry, please read the attached questionnaire. I consider this to be a kind of litmus test for those of you with grand aspirations. Read, ponder, act...

Best,

Bruce "Mr. Know-It-All" Campbell

I aspire for a career in the film/television industry because:

    a) I need a quick million.
    b) I have personal problems and being rich and famous will solve them.
    c) I failed as a Clinical Psychologist.
    d) I've got show biz in my blood.

My ultimate goal(s) is(are):

    a) To win an Academy Award © or:
    ___1) An Emmy.
    ___2) A Star on Hollywood Blvd.
    ___3) A trip to Disneyland.

    b) To be famous. I will be famous when:
    ___1) I win a Peoples Choice Award.
    ___2) I get recognized at my high school reunion.
    ___3) Everyone on the planet knows and loves me.

    c) To be stinkin' rich. I will be rich when:
    ___1) My phone stops getting cut off.
    ___2) I can buy medicine for little Billy.
    ___3) I can do a leveraged buyout of MCA and cast myself in anything I want.

    d) Both b and c.

    e) To be gainfully employed doing what I enjoy.

My main cultural influences are:

    a) Films where things blow up a lot.
    b) Nick at Nite.
    c) Literature.
    d) Life.

I hope to become involved in this type of project:

    a) Story-driven.
    b) Genre-driven.
    c) Forget it, Mom will drive.

I know I am talented because:

    a) Um, because my friends and loved ones say so?
    b) I know it in my heart.
    c) I received the "Ken and Barbie" award in high school.
    d) I have an extensive resume.

I define talent as:

    a) The ability to do one thing, really well.
    b) The ability to be mediocre at lots and lots of things.
    c) The ability to suck the chrome off a trailer hitch.
    d) The ability to make my friends think I'm cool.

My unique talent lies:

    a) In front of the camera - I want to act.
    b) Behind the camera - I want to direct...oh yeah, and write too...
    c) In front and behind the camera - I want to be a hyphenated person.
    d) Behind the Auto Parts store.

I define the success of a film by:

    a) How well it does at the Box Office.
    b) How well it is received by the critics.
    c) How hard everyone worked on it.
    d) How many good-looking women/men I met on the crew.

I will be successful when:

    a) I meet the right people.
    b) My new Hummer arrives.
    c) I own my own island.
    d) I get that tummy tuck for Christmas.
    e) Hell freezes over.
    f) Nonsense, I am successful now.

I will fail if:

    a) I don't meet the right people.
    b) Failure is not an option.
    c) Enough people tell me I will.
    d) The odds are too great.

The market price of my soul is:
(hint: you will need to know this at some point)

    a) $1,000,000 in tax-free Municipal Bonds.
    b) 3 magic beans.
    c) I cannot be bought! My self-esteem is priceless!

* Take this test before you ride the rails west.

Hint: There are no right or wrong answers.

My new project: Grim Fandango Deluxe

2011-08-25T02:22:00.001Z

Come see: Grim Fandango Deluxe

My Woody Allen-athon: Part 1 (1969 - 1975)

2011-05-26T20:37:00.000Z

An account of my experiences watching every Woody Allen movie in chronological order*

* Excitement not guaranteed.

INTRODUCTION
Why would anyone do this?

Well, for a start, I love film, and Woody Allen is one of its most iconic figures. I'd seen about three or four of his movies when I started this project, but I was aware that he'd been making a film a year (more or less) since 1969. That was a huge body of work about which I was almost entirely ignorant, and I decided I wanted to know more.

Also in my mind, was something that Quentin Tarantino said when I saw him talk here in London. When asked about watching the (arthouse) "greats" of cinema, like Fellini and Bergman, he was very candid about how difficult he'd found it to enjoy their work. He went on to explain that he'd learned not to jump into the "classics", but instead had found that the best way to appreciate a director's work was to start at the beginning, with the director's earliest film, and work your way forward. In his mind it was a mistake to immediately jump to a director's "best" work, because it was generally very difficult to appreciate without context.

He argued that by watching films in the order they were produced, you would watch the director progress, and so learn about what they were trying to achieve. That way, when you got to their most revered pieces, you would actually be better able to appreciate what they had accomplished.

I found this argument compelling, and so I decided to do follow this way of thinking with Woody Allen and his huge body of work. Of course, unlike Bergman or Fellini, I think just about everyone in the Western hemisphere is already pretty aware of who Woody Allen is, even as a filmmaker, and so can jump in, more or less, anywhere they like, but I was interested in discovering what he had been up to all these years, and watching his progression.

What on earth could a man have to say after ten, twenty, thirty, even forty films that he hadn't said before? What was driving him? Was he genuinely progressing as an artist, or just treading water? Had he, as many people seem to suggest, gotten more serious and dour? Had he forgotten how to be funny? Was all his best work behind him?

Whatever I thought I might find in answer to those questions, I wasn't prepared for how much I'd learn. Not only about his work, but about him as a person.

These are my experiences as they happened. I hope you enjoy them.

PART ONE - "The early, funny ones..."

"[Take the Money and Run is] really where I feel my career in films began. Before that it was all reasons not to go into cinema."
- Woody Allen, talking in 1992 (Woody Allen on Woody Allen)

TAKE THE MONEY AND RUN (1969)
w: Woody Allen & Mickey Rose, d: Woody Allen, e: Paul Jordan and Ron Kalish, dp: Lester Schorr, p: Charles H. Joffe

Ok, so here we are at the beginning. Take the Money and Run was the first time Allen had written and directed a film. I was aware of how unaware I was of this movie, so I wasn't expecting too much (surely if it was a classic, it would have been mentioned more in popular culture, right?).

The film's premise is simple: Allen is an inept criminal and this is a "documentary" of his life, complete with interviews with his parents, ex-girlfriends, etc. Alongside these documentary-style interviews is the main narrative, which is told using regular techniques (i.e. like a regular fictional film). Oddly enough, these two styles don't clash as much as they might sound.

My initial reaction (as I wrote it):
This was a good film, and a solid comedy. Sure, some of the jokes fall flat, and the film's first third drags a bit, but if I'd written and directed this film, I'd be immensely proud of it. It's actually (somewhat) emotionally satisfying and Allen's character is solid and consistent (something I see as a sign of a good writer).

It's quite a fantastic start to a career really, but it also shows just how good films actually have to be before they reach genuine classic status; Sure, you can buy Take the Money and Run on DVD, so it's not totally forgotten, but it's certainly not a film with much status now.

If I'd made this film, especially at the start of my career, I think I'd have been so proud of its quality that my only concern would be to try and keep my future films from being worse! Obviously there was room for improvement (this isn't the greatest comedy ever made, after all), but already an insight into Allen's character that he recognised this, and wanted to keep growing as an artist, pushing himself. The fact that Allen attempted to make more challenging films, rather than just regurgitate a successful formula, is possibly one of the most interesting things I shall take from this film.

Afterthoughts (further thoughts after I had let it digest, and read about the film):
According to some random bit of trivia I read online, this was the first ever attempt at a "mockumentary". According to Allen in 1992, he didn't find the making of this movie particularly difficult, and said he knew pretty much what he wanted from the beginning.

In all, this is a funny comedy, but it's unlikely to be your new favourite film.

BANANAS (1970)
w: Woody Allen & Mickey Rose, d: Woody Allen, e: Ron Kalish and Ralph Rosenblum, dp: Andrew M. Costikyan, p: Jack Grossberg

Allen's second film would focus more on being an outright "screwball" comedy. The idea here seems for Allen to get as many laughs as he can, with his bumbling New York character inadvertently becoming the leader of a South American country.

My initial reaction (as I wrote it): A much funnier, and leaner [only 70 mins(!), compared with 85 for Take the Money and Run] follow-up with the same co-writer (Mickey Rose). This time there's less filler and more on-the-mark stuff. I really enjoyed this one. It's a zany, screwball comedy, and there's a lot more physical comedy this time around (very slapstick in places) and it really works. I'm surprised at how talented Allen is at physical comedy, a real Harpo Marx. There's a good balance between satirical humour and outright stupidity, too (the satire never gets too much). I laughed out loud a lot more times than with his previous movie.

Thinking about it from Allen's point of view, I would have been unsure where to go from here in terms of my career: Do another high-energy screwball comedy (even higher energy/even more screwier?), or attempt something with more dramatic weight instead? [I'd seen Annie Hall, so I was aware of where he'd be eventually heading, but this was still a question Allen must have asked himself.]

Afterthoughts
This is a movie I would recommend to anyone, especially those who are unfamiliar with Allen's work. Sure, it's a rough around the edges, but it's still very funny and so lean that it goes by with ease. I also really enjoyed the satirical parts, which still hold up today. I also remember thinking how Louise Lasser's performance and character were a particular joy.

PLAY IT AGAIN, SAM (1972)
w: Woody Allen, d: Herbert Ross, e: Marion Rothman, dp: Owen Roizman, p: Arthur P. Jacobs

Play It Again, Sam arguably might not fall under the umbrella of being a "Woody Allen film". Although written by and starring Allen (and based on his own 1969 Broadway play), it was directed by Herbert Ross.

This may seem like a small detail, but there's no escaping the fact that this film sticks out from Allen's work so far (and even that which would follow it). In many ways it's far more accomplished, both directorially and script wise.

A surprisingly different movie from Bananas, I'm guessing this was a side of Allen that most people hadn't seen before (at least those who hadn't seen his plays). The story revolves around Allen's character, a neurotic New Yorker, getting over a bad relationship. The hook in this case is that his character is obsessed with Bogart (hence the title's play on the famous line from Casablanca), and this movie legend often appears to offer advice, and give the audience a chance to hear Allen's internal dialogue.

My initial thoughts (as I wrote them): Play It Again, Sam starts off exhibiting "zany" comedy traits, but it doesn't really work on that level and thankfully, as the film progresses, it becomes more dramatically serious and, as a result, much more rewarding.

The comedy helps tell the story, and the film's message, while a cliché, is effectively told. This is definitely a highlight of his career so far -- but possibly a very different experience from what contemporary audiences were expecting(?).

Afterthoughts
Interestingly this film was based on Allen's second Broadway play, which he wrote and performed in before making his first film. It's strange because this story feels maturer and more crafted than his previous two films (and the following two, for that matter), and yet it was written before them. I don't know if he polished the story when he wrote the screenplay, or if he was just attempting something different with the films he was directing, or if there was outside influence. Whatever the reason, this is a very different Allen movie at this point in his career, but it's also very successful.

According to Allen in 1992, when it came to directing Play It Again, Sam, he apparently wasn't interested, saying he wanted to focus on something new. Considering the somewhat amateur look of his previous films, it's not inconceivable that Paramount (the company that owned the rights to the film and produced it) might have had some serious reservations about letting him direct. Who knows what the truth is, but whatever the case, the "new" thing turned out to be...

EVERYTHING YOU EVER WANTED TO KNOW ABOUT SEX (1972)
w: Woody Allen (book: Dr. D. Reuben), d: Woody Allen, e: Eric Albertson, dp: David M. Walsh, p: Charles H. Joffe

This is more of a direct follow-up to Bananas, but certainly not as successful. I'm guessing that in the public's eye Allen was seen as a crazy cross between Harpo Marx and Grouch Marx, and the idea of him tackling a serious (potentially "taboo") subject was thus surely going to have hilarious consequences...

The film is based on the best-selling self-help book of the same name. Allen took random questions from the book, and wrote his own unique answers, and because of this basic structure, the film is literally a series of prolonged and unrelated sketches, each prefaced with a question from the book (e.g. "Do Aphrodisiacs Work?").

My initial thoughts (as I wrote them): This just didn't work, in my opinion. The comedy is neurotic when it should be light and playful, and light and playful when it should have been considered. The production seems to have had some difficulty too, as it looks very amateurish in places (although it's unclear if this is Allen's inexperience as a director, or technical problems).

The budget is clearly bigger than Allen had before, but despite this, the whole experience, including its production value, is wildly uneven. On the upside, Gene Wilder is great, and the final sketch (with Burt Reynolds and Tony Randall) is quite amusing.

I would consider this to be Allen's least successful film so far in his career.

Afterthoughts
In Woody Allen on Woody Allen, Allen reveals that he decided to make this film after seeing an advert for the book on TV one night. "And I thought to myself, 'Gee, that would make a funny movie.' To get the rights to that book and make little short things. Questions and then a little sketch or something. Just purely for fun." Allen apparently took real questions from the book and then wrote this own answers to them.

He went on to say, "I know that the doctor who wrote the book hated the movie. I don't know why. I guess he thought it was trivial or foolish or silly. But, you know, this book was silly also, and if he had really cared about it, he wouldn't have sold it to the movies." According to Allen, the book "presumed that nobody knew anything about sex".

In my own mind I don't quite see Allen's problem with the book, and I do think that a lot of people grow up being terribly ignorant about sex. So, for my part, I do see merit in Dr. Reuben's book and I can understand why he didn't like Allen's adaptation, however unique it tried to be.

SLEEPER (1973)
wd: Woody Allen, e: O. Nicholas Brown, Ron Kalish and Ralph Rosenblum, dp: David M. Walsh, p: Jack Grossberg

Sleeper is often listed amongst many people's favourite Allen films, so I was expecting a return to form.

The basic outline is that a neurotic New Yorker (played by Allen) gets frozen and wakes up in a future he doesn't understand. He eventually becomes reluctantly involved with some freedom fighters and their attempt to overthrow an oppressive government.

My initial thoughts (as I wrote them): I couldn't help but find this so-called "classic" a bit over-rated. The comedy is very uneven, Allen's slapstick, while good, is not on par with his earlier films, and the satire feels weak. Allen's character is especially confusing, starting off as a meek hypochondriac and ending up as a cynical, angry man. The best moments in the film come at the end in the form of the bitter interplay between Allen and Diane Keaton - two people who apparently hate one another, and blame the other for any problems, but are actually equally inept.

Some bits really don't work (like Allen using bleu cheese to knock out a guard) and it's mainly a collection of odd set-pieces, but with a bigger budget than Allen's earlier work. Quite disappointing, especially considering how revered I'd heard it was. It was nowhere near the quality of Play It Again, Sam.

Interestingly the final lines of the film are (from Allen's cynical character): "The only two things I believe in are sex and death...".

LOVE AND DEATH (1975)
w: Woody Allen (apparently uncredited work by: Mildred Cram, Donald Ogden Stewart), d: Woody Allen, e: Ron Kalish and Ralph Rosenblum, dp: Ghislain Cloquet, p: Charles H. Joffe

Allen's fifth time in writer/director shoes is another attempt at a light comedy, but this time with slightly loftier aspirations. Set during the Napoleonic wars, it light-heartedly mixes philosophy and zany comedy in random quantities. I had no idea what to expect as I'd never even heard of it.

My initial thoughts (as I wrote them): This fitted my mood perfectly, so my experience of it might be biased, but it seemed like Allen's attempt to build on his successful rapport with Diane Keaton, and to also attempt what he did in Everything You Always Wanted To Know About Sex: Take a well seriously regarded work and subvert it in some way. This time it was Russian literature (even the title is reminiscent of "War and Peace"), and I really enjoyed the results.

The strongest element of Sleeper (the aforementioned bickering between Allen and Keaton) was put to great use here. The production values were really good, too; This is definitely Allen's most beautiful film so far.

The bulk of the story was Allen's character's philosophical musings, and I really enjoyed them, even if the questions and insights were somewhat... self absorbed(?) it was still really funny.

The same problem that plagued Sleeper is present here, however: The unnecessary injection of "zaniness" (for example, contemporary cheerleaders on a 19th century Russian battlefield). These moments still don't work and I'm looking forward to them disappearing from Allen's future films. [I knew they eventually would.] Hardly any of Harpo's influence could be seen here, but there were still things that reminded me of Groucho.

Love and Death made me think of the type of humour I've seen in Allen's written work [such as "Without Feathers"], but whereas I've always struggled to appreciate that, here I really "got it". [I would later find Allen's written work more enjoyable, possibly as a result of experiences like this.]

There's no getting away from the fact that Allen's own directed work is still some ways away from the balanced drama/comedy success of Play It Again, Sam, but whatever flaws Love and Death has, I was pleasantly surprised at just how much I enjoyed it.

Afterthoughts
I still have very fond memories of this film and would definitely watch it again. I much preferred it to his last two films.

Continued in Part 2 (coming soon)

Battlestar Galactica Viewing Order (No spoilers!)

2010-02-07T20:47:00.059Z

The ultimate viewing order for Battlestar Galactica!

With so many off-shoots, extended episodes, webisodes, one-off movies and weird bits and pieces it's very hard for a new Battlestar Galactica fan to know exactly what order to watch everything in.

That's why, with the help of the kind folks at the Home Theater Forum, I decided to piece together a recommended viewing order for the entire series. But not just that, I've put together information on which versions of episodes you should watch and where you can find them, too. This really is the ultimate guide! (At least, it should be.)

I hope you find it useful, and if you do think I've missed something, please leave a comment and let me know!

Note: I heartily recommend watching the deleted scenes featured on your DVDs/Blurays after watching each episode. Some scenes (especially in Season 4, in my opinion) add a lot to the story and character's motivations. If you're ever confused as to why a character should suddenly do something, you may find your answer on the cutting room floor.

The Miniseries

Season 1

Season 2

2.01 Scattered
2.02 Valley of Darkness
2.03 Fragged
2.04 Resistance
2.05 The Farm
2.06 Home, Part I
2.07 Home, Part II
2.08 Final Cut
2.09 Flight of the Phoenix
2.10 Pegasus (56 minute extended version)
2.11 Resurrection Ship, Part I
2.12 Resurrection Ship, Part II
2.13 Epiphanies
2.14 Black Market
2.15 Scar
2.16 Sacrifice
2.17 The Captain's Hand

Razor (99 minute extended version)
TV movie. (Note: This was originally broadcast just before Season 4, but chronologically it fits here, telling more of the Pegasus's story. Some people argue it's better to watch after Season 3, as originally broadcast, but there are no spoilers if you watch it here.

Additional note, due to people's questions: Razor is almost entirely about the Pegasus, something like 95% of the story is about their crew. By the time you reach the end of Season 3, the events on the Pegasus will feel like ancient history, and it's very jarring to go back and learn more about what was going on back then. This is why it's recommended to watch it here, even for first-time viewers. There's one minor scene at the end of Razor which sets a tone for Season 4, which is why some fans insist it's better to watch where it was originally broadcast, but most fans agree with me that, all things considered, it is still better to watch now -- even if you're a first-timer.)

Optional: Razor Flashbacks (This was billed as a "7 episode web series", but really they are just deleted scenes from the broadcast version of Razor. In fact, most of these scenes are now reintegrated into the extended version of Razor, making what's left even more unessential. They are mentioned here only for the sake of completeness, and to reduce confusion; they are far from necessary. The only "episodes" not reintegrated are 1, 2 and some parts of 7. Note: These "episodes" were originally released online before Razor was broadcast, but the extended version means it makes a more sense to view them afterwards.)

2.18 Downloaded
2.19 Lay Down Your Burdens, Part I
2.20 Lay Down Your Burdens, Part II

The Resistance

A 10 episode web-based series bridging seasons 2 and 3. (25 mins.)

Season 3

3.01 Occupation
3.02 Precipice
3.03 Exodus, Part I
3.04 Exodus, Part II
3.05 Collaborators
3.06 Torn
3.07 A Measure of Salvation
3.08 Hero
3.09 Unfinished Business (70 minute extended version - Note: Not included on Region 2 DVDs, but is included on ALL Bluray releases.)
3.10 The Passage
3.11 The Eye of Jupiter
3.12 Rapture
3.13 Taking a Break From All Your Worries
3.14 The Woman King
3.15 A Day in the Life
3.16 Dirty Hands
3.17 Maelstrom
3.18 The Son Also Rises
3.19 Crossroads, Part I
3.20 Crossroads, Part II

A lot of fans would argue that it's worth watching the end of Razor again at this point (specifically the scenes featuring the Hybrid), as this was where Razor was originally broadcast, and its ending sets a tone for Season 4.

Season 4

Season 4 Continued (aka "Season 4.5" or "The Final Season")

4.11 Sometimes a Great Notion

The Face of the Enemy

A 10 episode web-based series (although it plays together like an intense mini-episode). (36 mins.) These episodes have not been included on any DVD or Bluray releases, but if you live in the US you can view from for free at Hulu.com. They are not presently available anywhere else in the world to my knowledge. (I highly recommended you do your best to find them -- not only was it entirely enjoyable, but it explains a few key things and sets up the next episode.)

4.12 A Disquiet Follows My Soul (53 minute extended version - only on Bluray releases)
4.13 The Oath
4.14 Blood on the Scales
4.15 No Exit

The Plan (DVD/Bluray movie)
A stand-alone movie that shows (approximately) the first two seasons from the Cylons' perspective. (You finally get to see "The Plan", mentioned all those times in the opening sequence!) Although The Plan was originally released after the show had finished, it is generally agreed that it should be watched here, so that everything is all tied up when you do reach the end.

4.16 Deadlock
4.17 Someone to Watch Over Me
4.18 Islanded In a Stream of Stars (62 minute extended version - only on BluRay releases)
4.19 Daybreak (150 minute extended version - only on BluRay releases)

The Plan
This is where this DVD/Bluray movie was originally released (after the show had finished). It's generally agreed that it's preferable to watch this after No Exit, instead of after you've finished the entire series, but there's no harm in waiting until now.

Caprica
An entire TV series set 58 years before the events of Battlestar Galactica, and revealing the events surrounding the creation of the Cylons. (Although it's worth noting that you don't have to have seen BSG to watch Caprica... and some people have decided to watch this series first.)

1.01 Pilot
1.02 Rebirth
1.03 Reins of a Waterfall
1.04 Gravedancing
1.05 There Is Another Sky
1.06 Know Thy Enemy
1.07 The Imperfections of Memory
1.08 Ghosts in the Machine
1.09 End of the Line
1.10 Unvanquished
1.11 Retribution
1.12 Things We Lock Away
1.13 False Labor
1.14 Blowback
1.15 The Dirteaters
1.16 The Heavens Will Rise
1.17 Here Be Dragons
1.18 Apotheosis

Blood and Chrome
This is potentially a whole new show that is presently at pilot stage. If the pilot is successful, a TV series will be produced. It is set to follow the exploits of a young William Adama during the First Cylon War, and is considered a sequel to Caprica and a prequel to Battlestar Galactica.

It scheduled for broadcast in February 2012.

Planescape: Torment - Best Mods/Increase Resolution Guide

2009-06-20T00:01:00.110Z

This is the ultimate guide to Planescape: Torment mods; Including increasing the game resolution, playing in widescreen, installing the best mods, fixing bugs, re-adding deleted missions, and running on modern operating systems like Windows 7, XP and Vista.
This is a complete step-by-step guide to installing, patching and improving Planescape: Torment. It will allow you to play the game in widescreen (in any resolution you like), fix hundreds of bugs, re-add deleted missions that were cut due to time constraints, and much more.

In short: This is how Planescape: Torment SHOULD be played.

All of these wonderful things are possible thanks to the hard work of the following Planescape: Torment fans: Qwinn, scient, GhostDog and Valerio Bigiani (the bigg). I've also used additional help constructing this guide from Jake, Air, Jeff Vader and others. Thanks a lot!

If you have any problems using this guide, there is now a TROUBLESHOOTING section at the end.

NOTE FOR GOG.COM USERS
Planescape: Torment was recently made available on the excellent Good Old Games website (aka http://www.gog.com). I'm pleased to announce that this guide is fully compatible with that version of the game, simply skip the first two steps and go straight to Step 3a. Enjoy!

Please note: It is highly recommended that you install these mods when you're starting a new game. If you're in the middle of an existing game, there can be unpredictable problems with your existing saves.

Note: The order in which you do the following steps IS important, so don't skip one unless it's 'optional' or 'recommended'.

Step 1: Install the Game (Required - of course)
You should have no problems using the normal installer, but it will only install the files found on Disc 1 (and then possibly force you to sit through an Icewind Dale trailer - arg).

WINDOWS 7 AND VISTA USERS
It is highly recommended that you should NOT install the game to your C:\Program Files\ directory. That directory is a special directory and is locked by Windows to make it impossible for other files to alter what is installed there (for security reasons), which means it will potentially cause you a few problems later when you try to save games or install mods. To make life easier on yourself, just install the game to a different directory (eg. C:\Games\) or a different drive (eg. D:\).

Don't worry about doing a full-install now though, we'll get to that later in Step 2.
Step 1a: Install the official patch (Required - Only on the 4 disc or 1 disc versions!)
Note: If your copy of Planescape: Torment came on 2 discs then SKIP this step! (The patch is already pre-installed on the 2 disc version, and installing again it will cause problems within the game.)

How to install: If you're running the 4 CD or 1 DVD version then just download the official patch (trmt11.exe) and run the executable (it will automatically know where you've installed the game). This will bring Planescape: Torment up to version 1.1.

Step 1b: Install language packs (Optional)
Install the language packs you want (if any).

IMPORTANT: QUICK CHECK!
Before moving on, try running Planescape: Torment and ensuring that it loads correctly. If it doesn't, then you need to redo the steps above before applying the patches below.

Ok, that's the basics done. Now let's take full advantage of your modern machine, and improve the loading speed and the graphics quality...

Step 2: Improve loading times on faster machines (Required)
Note: The step is necessary before you can perform the Steps 3a and b, below.
What it does: Copying all of the game's files to your harddrive improves the game loading speed immensely and allows you to improve the graphics, too. It requires approximately 1.3GB of HD space, which should not be an issue for modern machines.

How to do it (4 disc version):

First, create a new directory in your game directory (where torment.exe resides) and name it "CDALL".
Then copy all the .bif files from disc 2 into this directory. (You'll find the .bif files in a folder called "cd2" on the game disc).
Now copy all the .bif files from discs 3 and 4.

How to do it (1 disc version):

First, create a new directory in your game directory (where torment.exe resides) and name it "CDALL".
Then copy all the .bif files from the "cd2" directory of the disc into the CDALL directory.
Do the same for the .bif files in the "cd3" and "cd4" directories on the disc.

How to do it (2 disc version):

First, create a new directory in your game directory (where torment.exe resides) and name it "CDALL".
Then copy all the .bif and .cbf files from disc 2 into this directory. (You'll find the .bif and .cbf files in a folder called "cd2" on the disc).

It will take a while to copy all these files to your HD and Windows will alert you that some of them already exist. This is perfectly normal: These are duplicate files (the same files stored on different game discs to reduce the amount of disc swapping when playing the game from CD). Just skip them or overwrite them and you will be saving yourself 500 megabytes of HD space in the process.

When you're finished you should either have 188 files (4 disc or 1 disc versions) or 108 files (2 disc versions) in the CDALL directory.

Now we just need to edit the configuration file to point to our new directory instead of the CD drive.

Open torment.ini in Notepad. At the top should be a section called [alias] and it should look something like this:

HD0:=C:\Program Files\Black Isle\Torment
CD1:=D:\
CD2:=D:\cd2CD3:=D:\cd3
CD4:=D:\cd4
CD5:=D:\cd5

Please note: Your configuration file might not be identical to this!

The top line ("HD0:") is where the game is installed on your harddrive (as mentioned, it may be different than shown here). The next lines point to your CD/DVD drive on your computer.

We need to change it so that the "CD" lines point to this "CDALL" directory you created. So, in my case, my torment.ini file now looks like this:

HD0:=C:\Program Files\Black Isle\Torment
CD1:=C:\Program Files\Black Isle\Torment\CDALL
CD2:=C:\Program Files\Black Isle\Torment\CDALL
CD3:=C:\Program Files\Black Isle\Torment\CDALL
CD4:=C:\Program Files\Black Isle\Torment\CDALL
CD5:=D:\
Note: You can ignore the CD5 line, it's not used.

For the next step, we're going to speed up loading times even more. Look the for the following line in the torment.ini file:

CacheSize=600
and change it to:

CacheSize=1

Finally, to make the game look smoother and play better, make the following changes to the following lines in the torment.ini file:

Path Search Nodes=32000

and

Maximum Frame Rate=40

Save the file in Notepad and you're all set! (Note: Windows Vista and Windows 7 users should close and re-open the torment.ini file to ensure that the changes were saved.)

QUICK CHECK!
Before moving on, try running Planescape: Torment and ensuring that it loads correctly. If it doesn't, then you need to redo the steps above before applying the patches below.

GOG.COM VERSION OWNERS START HERE!

Step 3a: Install The Bigg's Widescreen mod (Highly recommended)
(Currently at version 3.05)
Note: You MUST complete Step 2 before attempting to install this mod (unless you're a Gog.com version owner)!

What it does: This awesome patch allows you to play Planescape: Torment at a higher resolution, making the game look a whole lot better, especially on flatscreen monitors.

NOTE
If you have existing savegames you will have to let the mod adapt them during installation, otherwise they will become invalidated. (The mod will give you a choice during installation.) I strongly suggest backing up your saves first. Please note: As a side-effect of adapting your saves to the new system, all previously explored areas will be re-covered in the "fog of war".

How to install: Download The Bigg's Widescreen mod (it doesn't matter whether you actually have a widescreen monitor or not). (If you want to learn more about the mod, or if the previous link is broken, please check the official site.)

Double-click on widescreen-v3.05.exe (it doesn't matter where it is) and Browse to the directory on your computer where Planescape: Torment is installed. (This is the directory where torment.exe lives and is usually something like: C:\Program Files\Black Isle\Torment\). Click Install once you've done this.

When the new window opens, choose to install "Component [Widescreen Mod]" -- even if your monitor is not widescreen -- by typing "I" and pressing ENTER.

When asked for your X-coordinates enter the number of pixels wide you'd like the resolution to be. When asked for your Y-coordinates enter the number of pixels high you'd like the resolution to be.

If you have an LCD monitor (and I'm sure 99% of you will), then you'll probably want to run the game at your monitor's highest resolution to achieve the maximum sharpness of graphics.
Here's a list of common resolutions for those who feel unsure of what to type. (You can keep experimenting until you find one that looks best for you.)

"Square" monitors		Widescreen monitors
X	Y	X	Y
800	600	1280	800
1024	768	1440	900
1280	960	1680	1050
1280	1024	1920	1200

Once you're happy with your selection, type 'Y' to install.

Note: You MUST follow the next step in order to fix the graphics at this new higher resolution!

Step 3b: Install Ghostdog's incredible UI mod (Required)
(Currently at version 2.1)
What it does: Unfortunately, increasing the resolution of the game will knock many special graphical effects out of place, put videos in the top left hand corner of your screen, make the menu screens look really ugly, and possibly even make the text really hard to read. Luckily this mod fixes ALL the above problems... It's really quite amazing!

How to install: This mod is a little trickier to install, but it's worth it, and all of the mods in the later steps are installed the in the same way...

OPENING .RAR OR .7Z FILES
Before you begin you will need some software capable of opening .rar and .7z files. If you don't already have something, I recommend downloading and installing the excellent free utility 7-Zip.

Once you've got some software capable of opening .rar archives you're ready to download Ghostdog's mod (just click on the "Download File" button in the top right hand corner, and the download will start).

When you've downloaded it, open it up (usually just be double-click on the file). Now extract the entire archive directly into the game directory (this is the directory where torment.exe is - usually C:\Program Files\Black Isle\Torment\).

Once you've done this, double-click on the setup file Setup-GhostDog's-PST-UI.exe from within the game's directory.

In the window that opens you will then get five options:

Install the mod with the default fonts
Install the mod with 20% bigger fonts
Install the mod with 40% bigger fonts
Install the mod with 80% bigger fonts
Install the mod with 120% bigger fonts

It's a pretty hard thing to gauge from just looking at the numbers, but luckily Ghostdog has also provided a screenshot to help you decide. Take a look at the preview below to see what size is easiest to read on your monitor (click to see full size):

To pick an option, just type a number associated with it and press ENTER.

Note: If you're running Windows 7 and AVG anti-virus and you get a "permission denied" error, you may need to disable AVG's "Resident Shield" before this mod will install successfully. (Thanks to Maale for the tip.)

Note: Don't worry! As with all of the mods below, you can always run the setup file again in order to change your options. So if you don't like the font size you picked, simply run the Setup-GhostDog's-PST-UI.exe again and pick a different option!

QUICK CHECK!
Before moving on, try running Planescape: Torment and ensuring that it loads correctly. If it doesn't, then you need to redo the steps above before applying the patches below.

Step 4: Install the Ultimate Fixpack (Highly recommended)
(Currently at version 4.11)
What it does: Fixes hundreds of bugs left in the game. You definitely want this installed before playing the game.

How to install: As with the previous mod, download the Ultimate WeiDU Fixpack (click the "Download File" button) and extract the entire archive to the game directory (this is the directory where torment.exe resides - usually C:\Program Files\Black Isle\Torment\).

Then double click on the set-up file, Setup-PST-Fix.exe, from within the game directory.

In the window that opens, enter your language number (for example, enter "0" for English) and press ENTER. Then choose "N" (you can view the readme later if you want).

You'll then get the option to install the following items:

Ultimate WeiDU Fixpack, by Qwinn
Dialogue Spelling/Grammar Corrections (English Only)
Subtitled Cutscenes

You should choose to install all three of these items, one-by-one. To do this, just type "I" and press ENTER for each one.

Explanation of the things you've just installed options:

The Ultimate WeiDU Fixpack is, as you'd expect, a ton of bug fixes for the game. You definitely want this.
The second option, Dialogue Spelling/Grammar Corrections, again corrects mistakes in the game's text (some serious, some not so serious, but all recommended).
The final option, Subtitled Cutscenes, is also recommended as there's some very important stuff said during the cutscenes -- that you don't want to miss!

You can now play a bug fixed, generally improved, version of Planescape: Torment, but why stop there when there's so much other great stuff to add...

Step 5a: Install Unfinished Business (Recommended)
(Currently at version 4.1)

What it does: The Unfinished Business patch adds many missions back into the game that the designer's didn't have time to finish. These are missions that should be in the game, but time and money constraints meant they were left out, despite being close to completion.

How to install: Download Qwinn's Unfinished Business patch (click on the "Download File" link).

Extract all files to the game directory (where torment.exe lives) and double-click on Setup-PST-UB.exe.

You will then be asked, as before, which items you want to install. All recommendations in this guide assume you're a new player to Planescape: Torment.

The first two SHOULD be installed:

All Recommended PS:T Unfinished Business Components
Expanded Deionarra's Truth Mod

Do NOT install the following:

Restored Cheat Items

Step 5b: Install Tweaks Pack (Recommended)
(Currently at version 4.1)

What it does: This patch tweaks and rebalances elements of the game. These are things that make the game more enjoyable to play, and have been requested by players since it was released.

How to install: Download Qwinn's PS:T Tweak Pack (click on the "Download File" link).

Same as before, extract all files to the game directory. Then run Setup-PST-Tweak.exe.

As a new player you SHOULD install the following:

Banter Accelerator (30 mins)
Add Quickload (adds Quickloading to F9 or F10 - not totally necessary, but you might as well)
BG2-Style THAC0 Display (makes your stats slightly easier to understand)
Stackable Rings, Charms, Bracelets, Scrolls
Explore City Areas

Do NOT install:

Scale of Souls

You SHOULD install:

Save Nordom! Tweak

Do NOT install:

Disabled Stat Minimums

You SHOULD install:

Maximized HP Per Level for TNO and Party
Maximized Friends Spell

These are very minor changes. I recommend NOT installing them, but it's up to you:

No Battle Music
Use Floating Text Font Globally

Do NOT install:

Identify All Items
Early Glabrezus Tweak
Power Action Leprechaun Annah, by Black Isle
Easter Egg Morte, by Black Isle
Rest Anywhere
Tome Of Cheats

Note: You can change your mind and add/remove any of these items later by running Setup-PST-Tweak.exe again.

CONGRATULATIONS!
You're all done! You can relax, start-up Planescape: Torment and enjoy one of the greatest games ever made in the best possible configuration. Hurrah!

TROUBLESHOOTING
If you're having any problems, here's a quick list of common issues with solutions.

Problem: I see weird graphical glitches when I play the game.
This thread by ghostdog explains how to remove them (I personally recommend the D3DWindower program solution - it worked fantastically for me).

Problem: I've installed the game onto my harddrive but it still asks for disc 2! What's going on??
Solution: This guide does NOT remove copyright protection(!). You will still need to have your Planescape: Torment disc inserted in order to play this game. There are a couple of "no cd" fixes to be found on the internet, but these will, unfortunately, most likely interfere with the many updates featured in this guide.

(Note: If you're having weird issues that nobody can help you with and you're using a "no cd" fix, that could be the cause. Unfortunately, if you didn't make a back-up of the original torment.exe file before you applied the "no cd" patch, then you will have to restart the installation of everything from scratch. :( )

Problem: I still don't get it. I copied all the game files onto my harddrive in order to make it quicker... so why does Planescape: Torment need the disc in the drive when I run it?
Solution: Yes, you are running the game from your harddrive, but while the game is loading it checks to see that you own the original game by looking for the game disc in your drive. Once it has finished this quick security check, everything else is being loaded from your harddrive.

Problem: I keep being asked to register my game, it's very annoying!
Solution: Very easy solution here, just go to the game folder (where torment.exe is) and delete the folder called ereg. This will stop that annoying pop-up from bugging you. (Thanks to Killah Mate for sharing this bug fix!)

Problem: The default game icon looks really cruddy on my Windows Vista/7 desktop
This bugged me, too, so I made this little replacement icon. Much better!

Download the Vista/7 compatible icon (right-click save as...).

Problem: I have another problem that is not listed here :(
Solution: Try looking in this thread on the Spellhold Studios website. Hopefully you will find your answer there. (If you not, you could try asking for help. Some kind soul may know what to do.)

If you have any suggestions on how to improve this guide, please post it below. Thanks everyone!

Red Dwarf: Back to a dearth of mirth (this time on Earth)

2009-04-11T13:48:00.009Z

Last night gave Red Dwarf fans something pretty exciting, the first episode of a brand new three-part special. Back to Earth: Part One marked the return of the much-loved characters after a 10 year absence. As a die-hard fan, I watched, but not with especially high expectations...

I have a lot of respect for Doug Naylor and the rest of the cast and crew of Red Dwarf, but unfortunately there's no getting away from the fact that this was ultimately a sub-par bit of science-fiction TV. Naylor has ways been about making people laugh first, and worrying about story, characters and science fiction, second. His book, Last Human, and his two series were the same, so it doesn't come as a complete surprise.

Sadly, despite his apparent best efforts to improve these short-comings, he still lacks the ability to tell a good story or allow characters to be themselves. As usual there were funny moments, and his punchy dialogue still hit the mark at times ("There's something bigger than God heading for you!") but attempts at anything else fell flat.

For instance, the characters, after an initial opening dialogue from Rimmer (that actually did sound like Rimmer) all characterisation attempts floundered. We saw Dave Lister crying over the grave of his apparent lost love, Kochanski. It should have been a moving moment, and, indeed, Craig Charles got a chance to show just how far he's improved as an actor over the years, but it still felt very forced and unnatural. There was little or no connection with the character's pain.

When it was time for the science-fiction aspects of Red Dwarf to appear, similar failings were revealed. A giant squid monster that, for example, wasn't in any way scary or threatening. The sudden appearance of another hologram, with only a single apparent attempt from Rimmer to vaguely ask where she was from. Instead of the crew suddenly being incredibly suspicious and confused, they suddenly focus on whether they liked her or not -- a double-whammy of failure in terms of characterisation and competent sci-fi.

Of course she's not going to turn out to be who she said she is. Even reduced to terms of plain story-telling it's unfortunately very obvious and clichéd what is going to happen.

The ending was perhaps the worst moment of all. I suppose we, as viewers, were supposed to go, "Oh my god! They've opened a portal to Earth!" But instead there was little shock or even any reason to care at all. I don't want to spoil anything for anyone reading this, but: They're going to go back to Earth. Hilarity will ensue (especially with regards to Kryten and Rimmer). Lister will find Kochanski and ultimately there'll be a plot device that means they'll all be forced back on Red Dwarf - but happy.

What does that leave us with? A scene with a character crying over a grave that wasn't touching. The appearance of a threat that wasn't scary or threatening. The shocking appearance of a new character that didn't shock the other characters. A sudden plot device that allows the characters to return "home" coupled with a cliff-hanger ending - that even the characters didn't seem to really care about...

The entire episode could have been condensed into something much more potent and interesting that allowed a storyline to be set-up on this new "Earth" (which could have allowed the creation of a decent cliff-hanger, too).

Naylor is undoubtedly a funny comedic writer. I've always said that he's fantastic at his one-liners. But unfortunately a show can't rely solely on one liners, however funny they are, and especially not a science fiction one. In this regard Naylor needs help from somebody with talent for structure, characterisation and plot. Even if it's not Rob Grant, it's clear that he still needs a helping hand from someone with taltents to complement his own.

Anyways, this is all a moot point, now. Red Dwarf is over. There will be no more TV shows. It's been a great 30 years and I hope the cast and creators have had as much fun making it as we've all had watching it. It's ultimately enhanced my life over the years and it will always have a special place in my heart.

Thanks Rob and Doug. It's been a blast.

Hellboy Reading Order (including BPRD)

2008-11-30T16:02:00.061Z

As a big fan of Hellboy (and the excellent spin-off, BPRD) I thought it might be helpful to put together a complete reading order for the entire series.

Those who have read the first three trade-paperback collections might have noticed that the published order isn't the order you should actually read the stories in. Very confusing for first time readers!

Of course a reading order can be tricky to judge because it's perfectly usual for Hellboy's timeline to jump around the place and without any serious knock-on effect to any other story.

With this in mind I only mark stories in RED that require you to read them in order. Stories in BLACK are related to the stories in red, but can be read at any time. The other stories (those in GREY) can be read at absolutely any time and are completely stand-alone.

So if you want to mix it around, you can now make your own decisions as to what to read next.

How to use this reading order:
Just start at the top and work your way down. Pretty simple! The order is my own personal recommendation (grouped by the trade paperbacks you need to own in order to read the story), but the Red/Black/Grey system means you can mix it up however you please, so long as you read the RED stories in order.

Note: The years the stories are set are included for the sake of interest only. (I just liked seeing them :)

Enjoy!

THE COMPLETE RECOMMENDED HELLBOY/BPRD READING ORDER

Hellboy #1: Seed of Destruction
1993: Untitled promo story (originally published in San Diego Comic Con Comics #2)
1994: Seed of Destruction
1994: Untitled promo story (originally published in The Comic Buyer's Guide #1070)

Please note: If you own Volumes 2 and 3, then you might want to read The Chained Coffin from Volume 3 before continuing with Volume 2. The reason for this is that Hellboy makes a passing reference to this story in Volume 2.

If you don't own Volume 3 (or 2) then it's perfectly fine to go straight ahead and read Volume 2 first. Reading The Chained Coffin before Volume 2 adds very little to the main story.

Hellboy #2: Wake the Devil
1996: Wake the Devil

Hellboy #3: The Chained Coffin and Others
1959: The Corpse
1961: The Iron Shoes
1989: A Christmas Underground
1994: The Wolves of Saint August
1995: The Chained Coffin
1964: The Baba Yaga

Hellboy #3: The Chained Coffin and Others
1996: Almost Colossus

Hellboy #4: The Right Hand of Doom
1947: Pancakes
1954: The Nature of the Beast
1956: King Vold
1967: Heads
1979: Goodbye, Mister Tod
1982: The Vârcolac
1998: The Right Hand of Doom
1999: Box Full of Evil

BPRD #1: Hollow Earth and Other Stories
1998: Abe Sapien: Drums of the Dead
1938: Lobster Johnson: The Killer in my Skull
1997: Abe Sapien vs Science

Hellboy #5: Conqueror Worm
2001: Conqueror Worm

BPRD #1: Hollow Earth and Other Stories
2002: BPRD: Hollow Earth

Hellboy #6: Strange Places
2002: The Third Wish

BPRD #2: The Soul of Venice & Other Stories
2003: The Soul of Venice
2003: Dark Waters
2003: Night Train
2003: There's Something Under My Bed
2004: Another Day at the Office

Hellboy #7: The Troll Witch and Others
1963: The Troll Witch
1958: The Penanggalan
1991: Dr. Carp's Experiment
1992: The Ghoul
1993: Makoma

BPRD #3: Plague of Frogs
2004: Plague of Frogs

BPRD #4: The Dead
2004: Born Again (Listed as "Prologue" to main story.)
2004: The Dead

BPRD #5: The Black Flame
2005: The Black Flame

Hellboy #6: Strange Places
2005: The Island (You can read this any time after The Third Wish, if you like, but it might retain more impact if you wait.)

BPRD #6: The Universal Machine
2006: The Universal Machine

Hellboy #8: Darkness Calls
2007: Darkness Calls

BPRD #7: Garden of Souls
2006: Garden of Souls

BPRD #8: Killing Ground
2007: Killing Ground

BPRD #9: 1946
1946: 1946
1939: Bishop Olek's Devil

Ape Sapien #1: The Drowning
1981: The Drowning

Lobster Johnson #1: The Iron Prometheus
1937: The Iron Prometheus

BPRD #10: The Warning
2008: The Warning

BPRD #11: The Black Goddess
2008: The Black Goddess

Sir Edward Grey, Witchfinder #1: In the Service of Angels
1879: In the Service of Angels
1879: Murderous Intent
1879: The Burial of Katharine Baker

Hellboy #9: The Wild Hunt
2009: The Wild Hunt

BPRD #12: War on Frogs
2006: War on Frogs
2008: Revival

BPRD #13: 1947
1947: 1947
194?: And What Shall I Find There

BPRD #14: King of Fear
2010: King of Fear

Hellboy #10: The Crooked Man and Other Stories
1958: The Crooked Man
1992: In the Chapel of Moloch
1986: They That Go Down to the Sea in Ships
2007: The Mole

Please let me know if you have any corrections and/or suggestions. Thanks!

Thanks to Shady on the Darkhorse forums for additional help.

The Hellboy Story Chronology

2008-11-29T19:11:00.024Z

I've recently fallen in love with Mike Mignola's Hellboy comic book series. After watching Guillermo del Toro's movies (first one: meh, second one: wow!) I decided to read the first collection, Seed of Destruction (co-written by John Byrne), and I wasn't overly enthusiastic at first, but I decided to persevere and discovered I was wrong: Hellboy was, infact, awesome.

Alan Moore's introduction to the second collection (Wake the Devil) points out exactly what makes it such a brilliant and unique series: It captures all the fun and brevity of Golden Age comics like Spider-Man but also has an interesting modern edge (and I don't just mean being filled with post-modern references; refreshingly there are none). It manages to be dark and subversive while always remaining sweet, innocent and fun.

The storyline leaps all over the place, in a very fun and effortless way, but you may wonder how they all fit together into a single chronology. No? Well, I did :)

The following lists the individual stories of Hellboy and the trade-paperbacks where they can be found. It is based on the excellent work of Kid Cthulu and Mist the Soul-Gatherer and features only canon works (so no Hellboy: Weird Tales, Hellboy: Odd/Odder/Oddest Jobs or Hellboy Jr.)

If you think I've missed something, please leave a comment! (The items in grey are ones that I'm not sure if they're canonical of not.)

Pre-Hellboy:
1937: Lobster Johnson #1: The Iron Prometheus
1938: Lobster Johnson: The Killer in my Skull (collected in BPRD #1: Hollow Earth & Other Stories)
Hellboy appears (1944):
1946: BPRD: 1946 (collected in BPRD #9: 1946)
1947: Pancakes (collected in Hellboy #4: The Right Hand of Doom)
1954: The Nature of the Beast (collected in Hellboy #4)
1956: King Vold (collected in Hellboy #4)
1958: The Penanggalan (collected in Hellboy #7: The Troll Witch and Others)
1959: The Corpse (collected in Hellboy #3: The Chained Coffin and Others)
1961: The Iron Shoes (collected in Hellboy #3)
1961: The Hydra and the Lion (collected in Hellboy #7)
1963: The Troll Witch (collected in Hellboy #7)
1964: The Baba Yaga (collected in Hellboy #3)
1967: Heads (collected in Hellboy #4)
1979: Goodbye, Mr. Tod (collected in Hellboy #4)
1981: Ape Sapien #1: The Drowning
1982: The Vampire of Prague (collected in Hellboy #7)
1982: The Vârcolac (collected in Hellboy #4 (redrawn and expanded))
1986: The Lost Army (novel by Christopher Golden)
1989: A Christmas Underground (collected in Hellboy #3)
1990: The Kabandha (from the Hellboy Sourcebook (only 4 pages) - not yet collected)
1991: Dr. Carp's Experiment (collected in Hellboy #7)
1992: The Ghoul (collected in Hellboy #7)
1993: Makoma (collected in Hellboy #7)
The original series begins:
1994: Hellboy #1: Seed of Destruction
1994: The Wolves of Saint August (collected in Hellboy #3)
1995: The Chained Coffin (collected in Hellboy #3)
1996: Hellboy #2: Wake the Devil
1996: Almost Colossus (collected in Hellboy #3)
1997: Abe Sapien vs Science (collected in BPRD #1)
1997: The Bones of Giants (novel by Christopher Golden)
1998: The Right Hand of Doom (collected in Hellboy #4)
1998: Abe Sapien: Drums of the Dead (collected in BPRD #1)
1999: Box Full of Evil (collected in Hellboy #4)
2001: The Dakini (prose) (from the Hellboy Sourcebook - not yet collected)
2001: Conqueror Worm (collected in Hellboy #5: Conqueror Worm)
2002: BPRD: Hollow Earth (collected in BPRD #1)
2002: The Third Wish (collected in Hellboy #6: Strange Places)
2003: BPRD: The Soul of Venice (collected in BPRD #2: The Soul of Venice & Other Stories)
2003: BPRD: Dark Waters (collected in BPRD #2)
2003: BPRD: Night Train (collected in BPRD #2)
2003: BPRD: There's Something Under My Bed (collected in BPRD #2)
2004: BRPD: Another Day at the Office (collected in BPRD #2)
2004: BPRD: Born Again (collected in BPRD #4: The Dead)
2004: BRPRD #3: Plague of Frogs
2004: BPRD: The Dead (collected in BPRD #4)
2005: The Island (collected in Hellboy #6)
2005: BPRD #5: The Black Flame
2006: BPRD #6: The Universal Machine
2006: BPRD #7: Garden of Souls
2006: Hellboy #8: Darkness Calls
2007: BPRD #8: Killing Ground

Note 1: If there's no story name it's because it's the same name as the collected edition (with no other short stories).
Note 2: The full name is only given once, after that it's just the volume number.

Best thing in ages...

2008-10-09T21:52:00.000Z

A new adventure game from the makers of Fate of Atlantis!

2008-09-20T17:48:00.023Z

What do you say when you hear that one of the founders of classic adventure gaming is about to return to their roots? Ron Gilbert is about to with Death Spank, Tim Schafer is creating Brütal Legend, Dave Grossman has Sam & Max. All exciting and wonderful. But did you know that the lead designers of the legendary Indiana Jones and the Fate of Atlantis, Hal Barwood and Noah Falstein have teamed up again? That's right and it's for a true-blue, classic adventure game based on the exploits of the infamous Mata Hari.

Time to sit up and take interest, indeed.

Mata Hari, for those who are unaware, was a real historical character. At one time the most famous exotic dancer in Paris, with a string of male admirers, she was later executed by the French authorities for being a German spy - creating the enduring image of one of the greatest femme fatals in history. But her story is much more complicated than that, and who better than Barwood and Falstein to bring her extraordinary tale to life...

Born in Holland to a wealthy background in 1876, the promiscuous Margaretha Zelle always craved an exciting life, but she wasn't to find one straight away. Her stable upbringing was suddenly uprooted when, at 13 years of age, her parents were divorced and declared bankrupt. If this wasn't already a shock, two years later her mother died and she was moved to spend the rest of her youth at an uncle's house, abandoned by her father.

Three years later, at 18, she responded to a lonely-hearts column from a Dutch Army Captain, Rudolf MacLeod. A few months after that they were married, but her life didn't improve the way she had hoped. Her new husband was a hard-drinking, womanising, abusive husband who neglected to mention he had syphilis. Things were impossible, but when MacLeod's disease killed one of their children, their marriage was pushed to breaking point.

After being beaten with a cat-o'-nine tails by MacLeod for wearing a low-cut dress at a ball, it was finally time to leave and attempt to find the life she'd always wanted. But MacLeod was determined to make it as difficult as possible and placed adverts in the local papers warning all shopkeepers to refuse her credit. Penniless and without prospects, she left her Dutch homeland in 1903 for the city that would change her life but ultimately destroy her.

Paris was dazzling and exciting, but she still has no prospects and soon she found herself forced to turn to prostitution in order to be able to eat. It was only when she was given a job at a circus that her calling would become apparent; Her talent, she was told, was in dancing.

Her desire was always men, perhaps an attempt to make up for an absent father, and dancing got her a lot of male attention. Despite not being considered classically beautiful she was determined to be become a professional dancer. She trained hard, developed her skills and created a whole new persona in the process: The sultry Mata Hari.

Inventing a new exotic history and claiming to have been trained in "sacred" Indian dances, an eager and ignorant public lapped up "Mata Hari". Her creation was a bigger success than she could have ever imagined and with the success came all the attention she could ever desire.

Despite the fact that her shows mainly consisted of her removing her attire (although never appearing totally nude on stage) she was seen as a serious artist. This wasn't the crudity of the Moulin Rouge, the public believed, this was ancient high-art performed by a highly skilled woman. She entranced Parisian high society, Dukes, Officers, Marquis, and became a respected celebrity overnight. Contemporary critics wrote that she danced like a "feline, trembling in a thousand rhythms, exotic yet deeply austere, slender and supple like a sacred serpent". She had men eating out of her hand and she loved every moment of their attention.

"Tonight I dine with Count A and tomorrow with Duke B. If I don't have to dance, I make a trip with Marquis C. I avoid serious liaisons. I satisfy all my caprices," she wrote.

Stories soon found there way into the press that added to her mystique; she was the daughter of an Indian temple dancer who had died giving birth to her, that she grew up in a jungle in Java. As a result, soon she was performing as much off-stage as on.

By 1908, however, her mystique had worn thin. She was over-exposed in the public eye, had many imitators and her credentials had come into question; Was this really high-art or just a woman undulating in various states of undress? The fact that Mata Hari was very vocal about her many lovers did nothing to dissuade her detractors that she was nothing more than an attention-loving harlot. Despite these issues she was unwilling to give up her luxurious lifestyle, and resorted to earning money at Paris's many maisons de rendez-vous (one step-up from ordinary brothels), while living off the generosity of her admirers.

If things had started to become difficult for Hari, it was nothing compared to the chain of events that were kick-started by the political situation in Europe. Having just found work in Berlin, the sudden start of the Great War quickly put aside any ideas of stability. Her job ended, all her furs and money were seized and, as a result, she had no choice but to retreat back to her native country and into the arms of an old lover. It was there, in neutral Holland, that she was visited by Karl Kroemer, the German consul.

Kroemer told her that he was recruiting German spies for the war and offered her 20,000 francs. She wasn't interested in being a spy, throwing away the bottle of invisible ink she was given, but happily took Kroemer's money, in the same way she had taken so many other's. She felt she deserved all the money she was given and had no qualms taking it. In Hari's eyes, Kroemer's money was nothing more than compensation for the assets that had been seized in Germany.

Naively, she failed to realise how much Europe had changed and, on her way back to Paris, British intelligence stopped and interrogated her. Little did she know that despite not finding a single thing to incriminate her, the British still marked her as suspicious. Why was this? The report merely noted that she "speaks French, English, Italian, Dutch and probably German" and that she was a "handsome, bold type of woman". Apparently it took little more than for her to be foreign, bilingual and confident for her to become a potential enemy.

Once back in Paris she resumed her expensive lifestyle, living in luxury at the Grand Hotel, but things weren't as simple as before: She was now secretly being monitored by two undercover policemen. They steamed open her letters and questioned any staff that worked with her. Reports show that, while they discovered plenty about her love life, they found nothing relating to espionage.

Also, despite being back in Paris, things hadn't really improved since she was last there and, finding life difficult once again, she longed to see the man she had truly fallen in love with, a Russian captain who resided in the eastern war town of Vittel. Unfortunately for her, travelling to such towns required permission from the head of French intelligence, Captain Georges Ladoux.

An ambitious man, Captain Ladoux had risen to his position amid fears of German spies infiltrating France, and he had his doubts about Mata Hari. Suspicious that she was a German agent, he promised her a permit on the proviso that she become a spy for France, for which she would be rewarded greatly; one million francs for valuable information. It was an odd move for Ladoux, but one that might have revealed Hari's allegiances. She took the pass and didn't worry about the consequences -- afterall she'd never done anything for Kroemer.

While at Vittel, her lover, freshly wounded from the frontline, asked for her hand in marriage. Excited, she immediately accepted, and turned to the practicalities of where they could find the money they would need for their new life together. Of course, she knew just where to begin.

Her first mission for Ladoux required her to seduce a German officer she had known before the war, now residing in Belgium, and attempt to gather information about weapons. Unfortunately Belgium proved impossible to enter and she was routed to Britain where, still under suspicion, she was sent away again, to Spain.

Determined not to give up, she began an affair with a German Major named Kalle in Madrid and managed to get him talking. She hurried back to France, only to discover that the information she had gathered was baseless and possibly deliberately misleading. Desperate to earn her million francs and return to her lover, she went back to Madrid attempting to get more intelligence from Kalle. Once again she came back with misleading information, much to the frustration of Ladoux.

It seems that Kalle could see through her deceptions and was enjoying playing with her. Cementing this idea is the fact that shortly after she left for the second time, Kalle ordered a German message be sent to Berlin using a cipher he knew the French had cracked; Mata Hari was Germany's spy, "Agent 21".

In theory this should have finally exonerated Hari from all suspicion once and for all; Why would the Germans use a cipher they knew the French and British understood to talk about a real, valuable spy. It is likely that Kalle was enjoying mocking France's attempts at gathering intelligence. Hari had no experience as a spy, after all.

Ladoux was fearful for his reputation. Hari had proven a worthless spy and he was afraid that people would think he'd only hired her as an admirer succumbing to her charms. He didn't want it known in France that the Germans were aware of their (lack of) progress in cipher-breaking and suppressed this information. He certainly didn't want it known that Germany was mocking his department.

With this information being suppressed there was no reason to doubt Kalle's message and a warrant was issued for Hari's arrest. Astoundingly, with little or no evidence aside from this one German message, she was tried and found guilty of treason. Instead of becoming a useful French spy and being able to marry her lover, she was marked as a traitor and sentenced to death.

On October 15, 1917, her request for clemency being denied, Mata Hari was executed by firing squad. According to eye-witness reports, refusing a blind fold or to be tied to the stake, her fearless expression never changed, even after being shot.

30 years later, one of her prosecutors, André Mornet, would admit that "there wasn't enough evidence to flog a cat".

This is the story of Mata Hari as best we can piece it together today. A small minority still claim that Mata Hari really was a cunning and devious German spy, but whatever the truth, it cemented the mythical idea of the beautiful seductive femme fatal, one that's been featured in countless stories since, and made a legend, for good or bad, of "Mata Hari".

Was she really a German spy or was she just a pawn in someone else's career. Was she, as most historians agree, a naive scapegoat, caught up in a complex and volatile situation beyond her complete understanding. Until 2017, when the French authorities open all of their documents relating to the Mata Hari case, it's up to people like Falstein and Barwood to do justice to this woman's incredible story, treating her life with the dignity and respect it deserves.

Of course, knowing how successfully they have weaved well-researched fact with mythical fiction in the past, it does raise the question; Why, in the name of all that is sweet and holy, did they decided upon THIS as their box art...

http://www.matahari-game.com/

Mata Hari is due for a German language release in November 2008. An English language release has yet to be announced but is expected. (We can only hope it's better than the artwork suggests.)

UPDATE
The game has been released in an English-language version on Steam... and good taste does seem to have prevailed, thankfully.

Take a gander here: http://store.steampowered.com/app/18480/

Joss Whedon's latest bundle of joy...

2008-07-17T21:46:00.014Z

Dr. Horrible's Sing-Along Blog is only available until July 20th (after which you'll be forced to pay for it), so go watch it for free while you can! (Yes, that is Doogie Howser. Yes, that is Captain Reynolds.)

Monkey Island Memory Trip

2008-07-01T19:14:00.007Z

I wrote this little piece for the LucasArts fansite Mixnmojo. They currently have a complete retrospective on the classic The Secret of Monkey Island, featuring interviews with project leader Ron Gilbert and artist Mark Ferrari. I think it turned out rather nicely, so I'm posting it here, too.

Hope you enjoy it!

The Secret of Monkey Island was the first adventure game I ever completed. I first read about it in issue #2 of Amiga Power, and became mesmerised by the promise of being able to play a character in my own little movie. I needed this game, but unfortunately it required a 0.5 megabyte RAM upgrade in order to be played. There was nothing I could do. So I obsessed about playing it, re-reading the review over and over, waiting for my birthday to come around so I could get the upgrade.

Finally, when the day came, I amazingly (and this has never happened to me since) wasn't disappointed. In fact, if anything, I was even more blown away than I'd imagined I would be. From the moment I heard the opening plinks and plonks of the xylophone and saw the 'LucasFilm Games' logo appear at precisely the right moment, I fell absolutely, head over heels, in love. I sat listening to the buoyant, joyous music and, enthralled, watched the entire opening credits (and doing so became a ritual every time I loaded the game, feeling it would be sacrilege to skip them). Then came the opening conversation (the first time Guybrush Threepwood was introduced to the world!), and it was simple, earnest and funny; a perfect description of the game I was about to play.

I remember finding myself on the moonlit pier of the beautifully and romantically realised Mêlée Island and, attempting to introduce myself to the interface, did the first thing the developers had intended me to do: LOOK AT POSTER, I told it. "Vote Governor Marley", Guybrush read, "When there's only one candidate, there's only one choice". The tone was set and the game continued from there. It was almost a spiritual experience, I couldn't believe I was seeing something actually smart, clever and genuinely funny in a computer game. I felt like I was playing a movie. My favourite movie. It was like Indiana Jones and Star Wars rolled into one.

It's important to remember that, back in those days, adventure games were almost entirely made up of dry, humourless, unforgiving experiences. I'd tried plenty and they'd all promised me the same thing; the freedom to lead my character through an exciting and entertaining adventure, but only The Secret of Monkey Island succeeded. It created a wonderfully welcoming universe, filled with little surprises and nice touches. Every single character, for example, had a perfectly rounded personality that could be appreciated in just a few lines of dialogue -- without the need for a tedious back-story (much in the same way a character like Dr Hibbert in The Simpsons can). Even today this is a rarity. The presentation, the characters and the overall sense of fun completely engulfed me, and I loved every minute of it.

This was an adventure game, no, a computer game, that had charm, wit and personality. An adventure game that didn't take itself too seriously, but at the same time didn't fall into the easy trap of being self-referential or fourth-wall busting, either. No, this was a genuinely joyful adventure that stayed true to its storyline and characters, while letting you feel you were part of the fun. I'll never have that experience again, but I'll always cherish The Secret of Monkey Island. After all, you never forget your first love.

Incredible

2007-12-30T03:14:00.001Z

Hope you enjoy this as much as I did. Have a great New Year's!

Read more about the video here:
http://dvice.com/archives/2007/12/lumbering_stran.php

Also, a little chuckle for the New Year. Some witty souls decided to replace the audio track on an insane bit of guitar wankery.

Happy 2008!

Geeks are cool

2007-12-08T13:36:00.006Z

This is something that's been bubbling inside me for quite a while now, and something which still irritates me: The idea that geeks are 'bad', or that they should be ashamed of who they are. This notion was recently pushed in my face while I was in the middle of a frustrating search for a new flat-share, here in unrelenting London.

Having noticed the only adornment in a potential home's living room was an old Robocop poster, and having made amiable chit-chat about the 1987 Paul Verhoven classic, and then spotting a crudely hidden collection of consoles under an old table cloth, I felt I was on pretty solid ground: The two 23 year old men who lived in this flat were, like me, geeks. Geeks without any talent for interior design, yes, but geeks non-the-less.

Learning that one of them worked at Microsoft, only backed up my initial reaction. Here was a pair from the same ilk as me, with the same interests and passions. Here was common ground, and the promise of enjoyable conversations and sharing of mutually relished past-times. In other words, bonding material.

"So", I later ventured cheerfully to the girl who was showing me around, and whose room was being vacated, "I take it there are some geeks here?". Her face, suddenly serious, took me off guard. "We don't like that word in this household", she fake-niced to me.

I faltered. What could be wrong with being a geek in this day and age? Are we not fully integrated members of society? Have we not earned the right to be who we are?

To be who are are.

I was quickly ushered out of the house, knowing I hadn't got the room. Polite goodbyes. A geek and geek-sympathiser, banished.

What's going on?

Those two men were geeks. They were geeks before I noticed the crudely blu-tacked sci-fi movie poster on their, otherwise bare, living-room wall. Before I noticed the gaming consoles. Before I learned one of them worked for Microsoft. Before I called them geeks. They were so geeky that their housemate was aware that they were sensitive to the word. Sensitive to it.

Why is this something to be ashamed of? Those that want to be seen as cool; why don't they realise that being a geek is cool?

The generally accepted idea of 'cool' is, I believe, someone who likes the 'right' things, does the 'right' activities and wears the 'right' clothes. In other words, someone who fits in with other people's shallow ideals. Someone who follows fashion. Someone who, unless they're genuinely being themselves, is controlled by the opinions of others, and if they are genuinely being themselves, enthralled by the shallow.

Is this really something to aspire to?

I'm sure most of you are already aware of what I'm getting at, but it surprises me how many people, even those much older than me, haven't learned this yet. Cool is subjective. Cool is temporary. Cool is in the minds of others. Why let other people control what you do with your limited time on Earth, and how come you haven't realised that everything worthwhile ever created was created by a geek?

That sounds like a bold statement, but it's true. So why do folks like my two (previously) potential flatmates feel so bad at being thought of being one?

Well, for one thing, it takes guts to be who you are in a society that bombards us with advertising telling us we're not good enough as we are, not pretty enough, not well-dressed enough, not popular enough.

Another problem is that sometimes we forget how transient 'cool' is. For example, if, dear reader, you're young, and you're part of a music scene you consider to be 'cool'. You probably think that the music that people who are older than you listen to is 'uncool'. If so, brace yourself for a bit of a shock: In ten years, that music you love will be considered old fashioned. Dated. 'Uncool', by the little tykes younger than you, who need to reject what came before them and find their own voice.

Not only that, but geeks created that music you love. You don't become and accomplished musician or song-writer by going to parties, getting wasted and nearly drowning in your own vomit. You do it by staying in, night after night, practising, learning, honing. Then, when you think you're good enough to display your skills in public, you spend the rest of your time organising and scheduling. You don't get to be a fuck-head rockstar until your record company is reaming your money off of you, you've been touring your ass off, you're fed up and, all of a sudden, the world wants to make you happy.

Some people get this backwards. They are not cool.

The people you see on TV, in magazines, in films, have all been dressed, lit, framed and, usually in the case of magazines, airbrushed, in order to sell you things. Talk about aspiring to shallowness.

If what you're aspiring to be is only going to age, be considered 'uncool' and ultimately be discarded, should you forever keep progressing and trying to keep up?

If that's naturally what you love doing and it makes you happy, then fair enough, of course, that's great. If you're following fashion because you feel that others won't like you any more if you don't, then that's not so cool. If you judge others on their ability to follow fashions as well as you, then, well, you're scum.

The truth is that the only thing you've got that will last and that will genuinely make you happy, is you're own opinion. It's the only thing that will not date, will not go out of fashion and can, if you're brave enough to listen to it, genuinely make you happy.

It's also what leads people to become obsessed with things and create. Every writer, musician, artist, inventor, scientist, and generally anyone who is truly successful at something they enjoy, is a geek. They are driven and controlled by the things they love, not what others love.

This the message behind the common cliché "be yourself".

If you can be yourself, ignoring what others consider to be 'uncool' or 'cool', then you've got my respect, because those that can remain themselves in face of those who tell them they're 'uncool' have a difficult path.

It's one thing to be affable and attempt to ingratiate yourself to people, that's great, but it's another thing entirely to be afraid or ashamed of your passions.

It takes a lot of courage to be yourself, especially if you're surrounded by people telling you that you're 'wrong'. It takes even more bravery to know that this is the reaction you're going to get, but to still decide to stay true to yourself and keep going.

The people that succeed at his are the real rebels and innovators, and they inspire others to do the same.

Provided you are mindful of the thoughts and feelings of those around you. Provided what you love causes no harm to others (and you know within yourself whether that's true or not). Then why not jump right in and splash around? Enjoy yourself. I know I'll certainly salute and admire you for it, and you'll undoubtedly find yourself having a good time, too.

In a perfect world our character, not our clothes or chosen past-times, would be what we're judged on. If you're a great, supportive friend, if you're a loving spouse, parent or sibling. If you're wonderful person to those around you, why should it matter that you catalogue and collect local fungi on the weekend? That you stand for hours on platform waiting for that train to arrive? That you get excited when you see certain postage stamps?

Be honest with yourself. If you're a geek, embrace it. Don't be afraid of losing face with those people you consider to be 'cool'. Those that stick around you will be better friends than those you have to impress.

Embrace yourself and your idiosyncrasies, learn to love what you are. This is the only life you've got, and it's closer to ending every single minute.

So don't grab hold of life, grab hold of yourself and don't let go. It's the only thing that you can truly trust to make you happy.

Now if only I could find a bloody flat to live in.

Thoughts on... Guitar Hero 3

2007-11-25T11:20:00.001Z

Guitar Hero 3 finally came out here in rainy England and I've just finished a three hour session. Impressions? Well... First of all, I'm surprised just how far I've got already. While there does seem to be some bad song timing (the ZZ Top one springs to mind), GH3 is also more forgiving than GH2. As such, I'm already over halfway through and I've not failed a song yet on Medium.

The second thing I noticed is that the song selection is GREAT. Rather than it being made up of songs and bands that I've not heard of, here I find myself knowing much more of the songs, and even if I don't know the band, recognizing the song... It's great. Playing Weezer's My Name is Jonas was worth the price of admission alone (almost).

My third impression is what's wrong with GH3: I know it's been said by others but Neversoft (the new developers of Guitar Hero) just don't appear to understand the music. The game looks nice, don't get me wrong, but with GH2 you could feel the love. Here it's all a bit cold, corporate and sometimes embarrassing.

After your "guitar battle" with Tom Morrello you get to play a classic Rage track... but before it comes on, the "camera" follows a female dancer in some stupidly tight leather pants and a tight top and she starts to dance.

This is RAGE AGAINST THE MACHINE here - not KISS! Rage were a very serious, politically-aware band. Morrello's guitar has "arm the homeless" on it, not "suck my love pump"! Zack Da La Rocha used to write FUCK SEXISM FUCK HOMOPHOBIA FUCK RACISM on his chest... and yet the camera is following this bored, half-assed, no-brained representation of a dancer across the stage... it's so incredibly NOT about the music. If you love Rage, this just feels incredibly inappropriate.

It's not the end of the world, obviously, but it really makes me imagine a bunch of guys in suits, smoking cigars saying, "Hmm, this track is a bit serious isn't it? Let's sex it up a little, eh?".

More evidence of Neversoft "not feeling the love" (if any more is needed) can be easily seen comparing GH2 and GH3's Career path. In GH2 you start off in a college gym, playing to a small crowd. You move to a small club. To a reasonable venue. To a massive venue. To an insane gig at Stonehenge with UFOs. (All, except the last one, rendered with nice, accurate touches of authenticity.) For you and your band, it's all about the music... You've become successful, obviously, but it's all about the live performance.

With GH3 you start off in a trendy winebar (or something weird), move on to what looks like a cross between an MTV video and a stripbar and then, on the third level, you're in a STUDIO, on the back of a fake truck, with smoke machines, filming a music video.

Woah, Neversoft, woah....

Firstly, one of, if not THE most enjoyable thing about Guitar Hero is playing your music to a screaming, adoring crowd... The thrill of the cheer, as it were. Except, on level three we're in corporate land, playing the songs to a director and some guys in suits... What the hell?! The crowd nose is still there... except there's no crowd. It's an oddly hollow experience and I was glad to finish the level and move on.

(Talking about crowds: The first time I got an encore in GH2, it felt great. The crowd kept cheering and then clapping in unison. I felt their love. Oh yes. In GH3 it couldn't be any less exciting if a Windows dialogue box popped up and and said "Play encore? Yes/No". Seriously. There is zero atmosphere.)

Next level: England. A great time to bring out some brilliant British rock acts, eh? Tip the hat to some classic Brit rock! The Who? Iron Maiden? Black Sabbath? Spinal Tap (nudge, nudge)? David Bowie? Led Zeppelin? So many more to choose from and it could all culminate in the specially recorded version of Anarchy in the UK by the Sex Pistols! It would have a nice touch and a cool level...

Instead, we get, Black Sabbath (good start), The Sex Pistols (great), Sonic Youth (huh?), Weezer (what?) culminating with...... PEARL JAM! (wtf?). Why even bother?! I know that GH2 had the Stone Henge level, but that was iconic, this just seems a wasted opportunity.

After this, in the little animations that tell the story of your career, you're accused of "selling out" so you do a gig in a prison to increase your credibility. This could have been REALLY cool. It would have been a perfectly level for some moody, heart-felt blues-ey tunes. The songs could have really made this work, but, as ever, Neversoft don't get the tone, so we get... Scorpions...!? SCORPIONS!?! *sigh*

After the successful prison gig we get another animation... and with this one the ideology behind GH3 is revealed in all its corporate glory: Your band are bored, watching the news, when they're mentioned; Apparently their popularity is up from last week... THANK GOD! They cheer! Yay! Being in a band is like playing the stock market! Yay! As long as we're popular, that's all that matters! Yay! High five! Maybe we'll get that Coke commercial! Yay!

GH3 was not made by music lovers.

Some of the comments between songs, really, truly suck, too.

When it comes down to it, GH2 was a true-to-its-roots, honest to god, all-about-the-music rock band. It was Led Zeppelin. In comparison, GH3 is a corporate assembled and approved rock band... with all the slick production that goes with it. By comparison, it's Hanson.

I'm sure most people won't give a flying monkey's about all this stuff, and they probably don't even notice, either. Overall, it might be humourless, but it's still Guitar Hero and the track-listing is AMAZING. Even the non master recordings sound really really good.

I'll play it. I'll really enjoy it. I'll recommend it to friends. But it won't get my heart.

--------------------------------------

There's been quite a reaction from Guitar Hero fans regarding the portrayal of women by Neversoft in Guitar Hero 3, and it makes very interesting reading:

• Portrayal of women in Guitar Hero 3
• Guitar Hero 3 vs Rock Band

Star Wars Exhibition photos

2007-10-23T21:15:00.001Z

Yes, I like Star Wars. (So do you, probably.) In the summer I visited the excellent Star Wars Exhibition. Having visited the one in 2000(?) and really enjoyed it, I was keen to visit the largest exhibition of movie memorabilia in history (!) as well.

Thinking that most of the new films where CGI, I was expecting to see the original trilogy represented more, but I was wrong and, as a result, slightly disappointed (no Chewbacca?), but I was also surprised at how much model work was actually used in the new trilogy. Considering how people go on (and on) about the use of computer generated imagery in the recent films, I think most would be surprised to see just how many old school methods were used in creation of buildings, ships and characters.

I took a photo of every model, piece of artwork and costume in the entire exhibition (geek, moi?), but these are the ones which came out best. I hope you enjoy them!

Click for larger images.

This one always makes me smile: It looks like Darth has gone for a night stroll (depending on how your monitor displays it), maybe walking his dog.

My girlfriend alerted me to some more photos here, too. I don't know the author, but I think some of them are really good. Hope you enjoyed my shots!

Cool new website...

2007-10-21T18:29:00.001Z

This just a tiny post to say that there's a rather good new site here: http://www.freerice.com/index.php

You test your vocabulary skills and learn while you're at it. It is fun, honestly. Your enjoyment also has the side-effect of donating rice to poor countries, too (just go and have a look, will you).

I managed to score at my best, 41, and, at my worst, 30. How about you?

Also, hot on the trails of Pretend to be a Time Traveller Day, is May 25th's Towel Day, in memory of Douglas Adams (although Towel Day actually came long before, but that's time travel for you).

Retro write-up: Alan Moore 'Lost Girls' talk

2007-10-15T11:54:00.000Z

On the 12 October 2006, Alan Moore and Melinda Gebbie appeared at the Institute of Contemporary Arts to talk with their friend Stewart Lee about the forth-coming release of their pornographic comic, Lost Girls. While those of us in the UK are still waiting for the official January 1st 2008 release (thanks to copyright issues surrounding Peter Pan), eBay and Amazon have mercifully allowed fans to get their eager mitts on Lost Girls now.

With Alan Moore about to make another public appearance on October 26th, in connection with Ian Sinclair's soon-to-be-published [in paperback] London: City of Disappearances (for which Moore wrote a short story, along with many other contributors), I thought I'd post my original write up of the ICA event for any Alan Moore fans who read this.

Tickets are still available, for the upcoming event, and if you decide to come, I'll see you there!

(Fans of Moore and Gebbie might also like to read their recent interview with Jonathan Strange & Mr Norrell author Susanna Clarke, from the Daily Telegraph.)

Here's what I wrote a year ago to this day [with some comments], in response to those asking for an account of the bearded one's public appearance:

----------------------

I suppose I should write something!

It was really good. Both Melinda and Alan were great. Stewart Lee seemed a little nervous as host, and he said so, but he never explained why (the [pornographic] material or the whole set-up?), but he was still great too. He never lost the thread of the conversation and pulled Alan back when he did.

In fact, Stewart Lee did a very good job indeed. He even confronted Alan a bit about some of the aspects of Lost Girls which he thought were cartoony, and also when an audience member asked Alan that, considering he gets upset about how his work is treated by other people (namely, filmmakers), how did he think the original authors of Alice in Wonderland, The Wizard of Oz and Peter Pan would feel about his use of their characters.

Alan sort of avoided the question, apparently hoping that none of us would notice, but Stewart Lee pulled him right back and forced him to answer properly. Which he did, extremely well, too. Basically he said that, with his work, they used the same title, so many people think that the League of Extraordinary Gentlemen and From Hell films are taken from his writings. As a result of this, his work is diminished because he becomes associated with a crap movie he had nothing to do with, rather than a good book that he wrote.

This is of course, his real bone with Hollywood, and it's good to hear his real reasons for his hatred, rather than the usual cack-handed rationalisation he hands out by way of explanation ["they cost too much money" etc.].

Stewart Lee opened the evening by pointing out the bizarre situation: They were about to talk about a book that a tiny percentage of the audience have read and that wasn't even officially released yet. But they did do just that, and I think that they did a great job. They used images from the book projected onto a screen behind them, so they could talk about specific things.

A lot of what what said has already been said in many Moore and Gebbie interviews about the book, but it's always nice to hear it from the horse's mouth, so-to-speak, and most people there probably hadn't read the interviews anyway.

Some of the things discussed were; The original inspiration (Moore wanted to do something pornographic, but couldn't figure out how - Melinda helped him come up with the idea of Wendy and they developed it together from there). How they couldn't have done it if they weren't a couple. How they collaborated together. Moore's views on the original authors [Carroll and Barrie as probable paedophiles] (only L. Frank Baum came out 'clean' - until Lee pointed out he was a member of the Ku Klux Klan [not sure about the KKK connection, I've since looked into it and been unable to find anything supporting Lee's claim - but Baum did once print his positive opinions about the killing of Native Americans]). I'm probably not doing it justice, actually! There was a LOT of stuff discussed, followed by questions from the audience, but it all pertained to Lost Girls.

I remember one person (a girl) asked if they were fans of Angela Carter(?) and the work she'd done trying to create, I presume, female-friendly, artistic pornography. Moore explained that they both were, and Melinda went on to discuss how she'd tried really hard to make her artwork beautiful and attractive for women, too. Moore added that they'd discovered that it took very little to please a male audience (big laugh), so they'd concentrated a lot on making Lost Girls work for women.

I got to meet Moore afterwards and he, as always, was extremely gracious, even if a complement I was trying to give him got misunderstood (I said that I'd noticed the blurb for Lost Girls begun "can pornography be art?", but after reading it it seemed to me that it was the other way around: Lost Girls was a real work of art... with pornography. He took no hesitation to point out that "well, of course it's art, we just wrote that stuff for the blurb..."). Obviously I knew that Moore would think it was a work of art, but he seemed to miss the complement I was trying to give him. Of course he'd been there for two hours at that point and the queue was still out of sight, so I suppose he just took my comment at face value, and as such my comment must have seemed silly to him.

I did get to explain one other observation to him (which he liked more), and that was how hard it must have been to create characters to fit in the genre of porn. That is, in thrillers, comedies, dramas, whatever, each character behaves in a certain way which is conducive to the events in that story, whether it is 'realistic' or not. (In a thriller it could be a quickly getting over a brutal murder in order to get revenge; in a comedy it could behaving in a way in order to create a ridiculous set-up, etc.) It's important that characters in stories don't impede the story by reacting too realistically to events, but also they must behave in a way that seems somewhat real to keep the story going. If you go too far in either direction the fictional 'reality' is ruined; too real and our characters stop the story. Too conducive in making the plot work and we stop believing in the characters and, as a result, we don't care about them any more.

What I've noticed in porn that tries to have a story (and I'm sure I'm not the only one), is that any attempts to create characters that can exist in a world where they could have sex with a complete stranger at the drop of a hat, is usually unbearably contrived, and as a result it becomes a joke.

Moore amazingly managed to create characters that somehow seemed 'real', so we care about them, but they could still exist in this universe where sex could happen at any time with no emotional strings attached. In a word: Wow!

He appreciated this complement a little more and said that it hadn't been easy! (Although I'm amazed I managed to get it all out and he follow what I was saying!)

I also queued to get my copy of Lost Girls signed by Melinda Gebbie, and she was, as usual, fabulous! So incredibly nice and friendly, such a lovely person! I was there with my girlfriend and Melinda asked her what she thought of Lost Girls, and said to me, "sorry, but I'm more interested in what she thought than you!", which was really funny. My girlfriend wasn't totally comfortable discussing it with other people around (understandably), but she told her that she liked it. (Afterwards my girlfriend kept looking for an opportune moment to talk to her a bit more privately, as it was obviously something Melinda was interested in and my girlfriend had things to say, but sadly it never came.)

After we'd got the signings done, I decided to say hello to Chris Staros from Top Shelf and ended up having a really nice conversation with him. I wasn't expecting it, but he was an extremely nice guy. Me, my girlfriend and I talked to him for quite a while. Afterwards, what with how unbelievably nice Alan Moore, Melinda Gebbie and now, Chris Staros where, my girlfriend was just like "I want to work with these people... they're all so nice!!", which was very true. It seemed like Alan Moore, Melinda and Top Shelf were a perfect match for each other, and just really really nice people.

I learned some interesting things about Top Shelf too, namely that it's entirely run by two guys: One in Portland and one in Atlanta! Amazing! They've been going for ten years and they've slowly over that time become bigger and bigger, but it's still just the two guys!

Anyways, that was a quick stream-of-conciousness review of the event. Sorry if it was a bit all over the place or didn't answer any question you were hoping I was going to. (Please ask!)

I didn't see any cameras, but it's possible the event's audio was being recorded. We can only hope that someone has a bootleg of it. [One has yet to appear, sadly.] It would be well worth a listen as the night was extremely enjoyable and informative.

----------------------

The excellent Lost Girls should be seeing a UK/European release on January 1st 2008.

A brilliant idea! (Not mine.)

2007-10-10T20:15:00.005Z

This is a rather brilliant idea, and I wish I could claim it as my own, but Dresden Codak creator, Aaron Diaz, (I've not read it, either) has come up with an excellent idea for a new public holiday (or indeed, just a great fancy dress idea).

December 8th, 2007 - Pretend to be a Time Traveller Day!

On Dec 8th you dress up and behave as if you are from a different century. Mr Diaz explains you choices:

#1: Utopian/Cliché Future
Star Trek! Imagine you're Picard or Kirk (or from any other similar sci-fi) and you've suddenly been sent hurtling through time. Think all-in-one velour outfits. You're completely out of your depth, but also very polite. Interact with wonderment at all the "primitive" technology and show extreme ignorance in operating it. Expect everything to be voice-activated; vending machines, pay phones, elevators, etc.

- Ask shops if they'll accept Credits for payment. Act very "proper" and polite. If you're travelling on public transport, sit-up straight and look around at everything.

- Try to "hide" alieneqsue features, like Spock ears under a sweat band, and then act self-conscious about them.

- Refer to things that don't exist, for example: "Where's the nearest matter transporter?"

- Refer to cars as "vessels" or "ships" and when travelling in one, look confused when trying to put on your seatbelt.

- Stop people in the street and ask them if they've seen any of your crew-mates, describe them as being basically human, but then add alienesque features at the end. Eg. "Quite tall, brown hair, heavy build... big wrinkley forehead", "She's my height, with blonde hair, blue eyes, green skin, big smile", etc.

Remember: You'll be trying to "fit-in", so explain your behaviour by "pretending" you're joking: "Of course! I was thinking it had an holo-fusion reactor... How silly of me! (nervous over-the-top laughter)." Then act lost by randomly changing direction.

#2: Dystopian Future
This one offers a little more flexibility. It can be any kind of future from Terminator to Mad Max. The important thing to remember is dress like a crazy person with armor. Black spray painted football pads, high tech visors, torn up trenchcoats and maybe even some dirt here or there. Remember, dystopian future travelers are very startled that they've gone back in time. Some starters:

- If you go the "prisoner who's escaped the future" try shaving your head and putting a barcode on the back of your neck. Then stagger around and stare at the sky, as if you've never seen it before.

- Walk up to random people and say "WHAT YEAR IS THIS?" and when they tell you, get quiet and then say "There's still time!" and run off.

- Stand in front of a statue (any statue, really), fall to your knees, and yell "NOOOOOOOOO"

- Stare at newspaper headlines and look astonished.

- Take some trinket with you (it can be anything really), hand it to some stranger, along with a phone number and say, "In thirty years dial this number. You'll know what to do after that". Then slip away.

#3: The Past
This one is more for beginners. Basically dress in period clothing (preferably Victorian era) and stagger around amazed at everything. Since the culture's set in place already, you have more of a template to work off of. Some pointers:

- Airplanes are terrifying. Also, carry on conversations with televisions for a while.

- Discover and become obsessed with one trivial aspect of technology, like automatic grocery doors. Stay there for hours playing with it.

- Be generally terrified of people who are dressed immodestly compared to your era. Tattoos and shorts on women are especially scary.

And that's pretty much it. Just remember, try to fit in! You obviously wouldn't want people to know you are from another when, so never admit you're a time traveller and make really bad attempts at keeping a low profile.

Not sure yet how I'm going to go... Its a toss between the past and dystopian future... leaning toward dystopia right now.

Anyone else want to accompany me on my imaginary trip through time?

What a hilarious idea, and certainly one that could down well at fancy dress parties, too! Kudos to Aaron Diaz (whoever he may be) and Flint Paper (whoever he is), whose blog I found this on!

It's the new Talk Like A Pirate Day!

Retro review: Red Dwarf - The individual novels

2007-10-06T13:34:00.003Z

Occasionally my excitement for things that I used to love is reignited, and not so long ago I found my it lit up for the classic BBC TV sci-fi comedy show, Red Dwarf. It's always had a soft-spot in my heart (and undoubtedly will), and I decided to re-read the classic novels written by Rob Grand and Doug Naylor.

After seriously enjoying Infinity Welcomes Careful Drivers and Better Than Life (the first two books), I decided to give the subsequent solo novels another go and see how I felt about them; Doug Naylor's Last Human and Rob Grant's Backwards.

For those who are unaware, or may have forgotten, Doug Naylor and Rob Grant wrote the first two Red Dwarf novels together (under the pseudonym Grant Naylor), but after a split in their working relationship and an aborted attempt to write a third novel together, they separately wrote two completely unrelated sequels. Unlike their work together, which was well received, their individual efforts received mixed reviews, especially from fans.

Here were my immediate reactions after reading them again:

Backwards by Rob Grant

I've just finished re-reading Backwards and I have to say that I'd forgotten how completely brilliant it was. I'd forgotten just what a good, satisfying well-paced read it is. I was also surprised (and perhaps pleased) at how little was taken from the TV series. In all, there were four ideas taken from three episodes: Backwards (obviously), Dimension Jump (the idea of Ace Rimmer) and Gunmen of the Apocalypse (pretty much the whole show, including the idea of xenophobic battledroids hunting humans).

Only really Gunmen was referred to heavily (which was an odd choice considering how much of that show was based on visual humour), and even then almost all of the dialogue was different (unlike the first two novels which copied dialogue verbatim, more often than not, when taking things from the TV series). The other ideas taken from the series were expanded and changed considerably, even more so than the first two novels.

For whatever reason, it seemed as though Grant was trying very hard not to use too much from the series, and thankfully it's not to the book's detriment.

Despite feeling like a fairly large tome, the story runs at an incredibly comfortable pace. You really get the idea that Grant could have just happily kept on writing and writing and, interestingly, I don’t think the reader would have gotten bored, either. Maybe because of this, the ending does appear a tad rushed and/or abrupt (although this may just be an illusion caused by the spelling errors that even made their way into the final chapters of paperback edition).

Still, despite it’s size and apparently rushed ending, it’s a incredibly cohesive and satisfying read. I don’t think I really noticed the journey that Rimmer goes through when I first read it (no idea why, perhaps I was too young to pick up on it), but this time it was clear to me that he was the backbone of the whole story.

There was at least one missed opportunity by Grant, though: A scene where an uptight Rimmer and a reluctant Ace talk in private to try and figure out where their lives diverged would have been utterly priceless (and could have set up the epilogue nicely, too). Bizarrely this undoubtedly interesting conversation is replaced by the “wrap things up quickly” scene from the TV series (where Lister has sudden and amazing insider-information on where the change took place). Ah, well, in another universe, perhaps.

Rimmer's personality is reset to “bastard mode”, which doesn't fit continuity from the warmer person he changed into when Lister grew older in the second book. That said, it's no surprise, as Rimmer generally works better as a character when he's at his most antagonistic, and it felt like the right starting off point for the book.

(As an aside; is it just me, or is that chapter featuring a teenage Cat and a young nubile woman in a gingham dress just a little bit weird/creepy/disturbing/wrong? Why is it in there?)

In all it was a great read, much better than even I remembered or expected. I ordered a copy of Last Human to see if it could impress as well.
—————————-
Last Human by Doug Naylor

I made it 50 pages into Last Human, and I just couldn’t take any more… It’s very funny, don’t get me wrong, and there’s some brilliant lines, but it doesn't feel right. Reading it was like driving in a car in dire need of a mechanic; It looks OK and is driveable, but it keeps making such horrendous and unhealthy noises that you don't want go keep going.

For a start, Naylor clearly has no issue with messing with the entire Red Dwarf canon. Take for example, Rimmer's inferiority complex regarding his more successful brothers. Whereas Grant thoroughly explored these issues, and used them as the backbone to his entire story (turning them into something we could all relate to in process), Naylor says they're all down to the fact that Rimmer didn't get a memory implant when he was a boy. Not an inferiority complex as much as actually being inferior. Not only is the explanation completely unrelateable to the reader, but it's also completely illogical: Why doesn't he buy a memory implant now, as a grown man?

The fact that this character-changing line is tossed away in such an unemotional manner is unfortunately indicative of the care and thought seen elsewhere into the book. Another example is the amount of pseudo-science, that not only doesn’t hold up to even the tiniest bit of scrutiny, but also disregards everything we know about the Red Dwarf universe.

All over the place random scientific sounding bits and bobs that are tossed into the story and dialogue without explanation. All of a sudden even the Cat is an astrophysicist. Things like “unused time lines” (how can a parallel universe be considered "unused"? We can supposedly visit them, so do the people living in them consider their universe "unused"?) or the fact that Starbug has a “Hubble telescope” installed (I mean, come on) are just horrible.

I guess Doug would argue that it’s all about entertaining readers, and don't care about the science and technology (so long as it sounds ok), they just want a laugh, and while I can definitely agree that Last Human tries very hard to tickle your rib bones (and succeeds very often, too), I have to ask; if you're going to do the science-fiction without the science, why bother?

—————————

Reading both books gave me a very strong idea of who did what in the Red Dwarf universe. Doug Naylor was clearly the man with the funny one-liners but, unfortunately for his book, no grasp of characterisation and no exploration of ideas or concepts. Rob Grant’s book feels deeper and more satisfying, with the laughs tickling your brain more than your ribs, but it's also much heavier by comparison. The writers seem like two parts of the same brain.

When they merge they turn from two funny, talented guys into one hilarious, unique, sublime, gestalt entity. I hope they work together again at some point.

Grant Naylor, are you out there?

Tarantino 'Death Proof' - London Q&A: Pt 3

2007-09-29T15:55:00.005Z

This is the third and final part of my write up of the Death Proof Q&A Session with Quentin Tarantino and Zoe Bell. Thanks for all the kind comments on various forums, and the insistence from some that I finish this sooner rather than later. It has spurned me on to do this now, even when I can't be bothered!

Don't forget there's also Part One and Part Two, which are both probably worth reading.

Spoilers below.

So here it is, the last bit. This is where all the left over moments that I didn't mention get dumped. As with the last two posts, I'm writing this off the top of my head with very little in way of sensible editorial control and also, because this final part is actually little moments that didn't fit into parts one or two, it's not very well structured.

My lasting feeling from the events was that both Tarantino and Zoe Bell came across as very nice people (Zoe especially; I hope she continues to do more off the back of Death Proof). Tarantino may have been sniffing an awful lot during the beginning of the Q&A, but I can't possibly speculate as to why, so let's give him the benefit of doubt.

It was really the director's night and Zoe Bell, brimming with as much nervous, excitable energy as you might expect for a newcomer, was careful not to not step on his toes. While I would have been more than happy to hear more from the charming New Zealand star, I was glad she let Tarantino have his say... as he always has a lot!

One of the most interesting revelations of the night was his explanation of his feelings about Jackie Brown. If I recall correctly, someone asked him if he would be adapting anyone else's work again in the future, and Tarantino's answer was quite interesting.

As a sort of disclaimer, he made it clear that he loves Jackie Brown, and he by no means wanted to disrespect it in any way, but at the same time, he described how once it was made, he didn't get the same amount of buzz as when he has created something from scratch. For him the experience was apparently a bit of a let down.

He described how exciting it was to start off with a blank piece of paper, imagine a whole world of characters and situations, and ultimately turn it into an something that he then gets to see other people experience. (And looking around the crowd, the energy on the faces of people still buzzing from having just watched his latest creation was palpable.)

He claimed that this feeling that was missing when Jackie Brown was complete. It wasn't his world, they weren't his characters, and as such, there was something missing from the experience for him.

He then told an anecdote about discussing this particular feeling with another filmmaker who had just adapted something for the first time in their career (although he didn't say who, you got the feeling it was someone big), and they agreed with him; the experience was not as satisfying as seeing your own creation come to light, and as such, it just wasn't as exciting seeing it finished.

Again, he made it clear that that has now all this has passed, and it was just a feeling that was missing at that moment in time, and he's very proud of Jackie Brown, etc etc, but in the end, he said that the feeling he felt was strong enough to put him off wanting to adapt anything else in the future. So no more adaptations on the horizon for Tarantino!

Another question asked, in light of his feelings about adapting other people's work, was which of his own characters did he like the most. At this point Zoe Bell piped in with, "not including me, who is obviously your favourite, right?". Tarantino laughed and said, "of course", but then seemed to think about it and added, "actually, you're not my creation, you play yourself!" (which, judging her from the night, she most definitely does).

So, and I hope I'm remembering the full list (see why I left these questions to last?), he thought about it and said: Butterfly, Abernathy, The Bride, Mia Wallace, Mr Pink and Mr Blonde. I remember thinking, "no Mr. White?", but no, he wasn't there. (If anyone is out there going, "but what about Jules and Vincent?", um, well, they may have been there, but I can't remember for sure.)

Someone asked what he thought of Rob Zombie's new Halloween film and I was pleasantly surprised at how candid he was with his opinion, "I liked the first 40 minutes, but after that... I hated it". It's refreshing to hear someone just be honest for a change.

Tarantino was also very open about his general dissatisfaction working with Directors of Photography in general. Death Proof is the first film which Tarantino shot himself, without a DP, and he seemed to appreciate the freedom this gave him. Also, he joked that Death Proof was the perfect project to try it out on, "If it looked bad, I could just say, 'it's supposed to look bad, it's a 70's exploitation film!'".

He talked a little about his frustration of working with DPs, and how all they bring their own staff with them, who then, wanting to keep their working relationship with the DP in question, work for the DP instead of for Tarantino. You got the sense let it was a source of some considerable frustration for him, and that there must have been issues in his previous films, although he named no names.

Aside from Zoe Bell's sweet account of how Tarantino revealed to her just how big a role she had in his latest film (she at first thought it would be a one line cameo at most), which is also told on the Death Proof DVD for those who want to hear it, I'm sorry to say that think I'm out of material.

The whole experience was an incredible one, and one that changed my feelings about, not only Death Proof, but also Tarantino. It was nice to see the director "uncut" and clearly in an environment where he felt comfortable.

Thinking about Death Proof in a more critical light as a result of this evening, my girlfriend came up with a really interesting psychological profile for Stuntman Mike. In her mind, Mike was basically an average guy that got into stunts a little too much. The buzz from surviving car accidents made everything else pale in comparison and he got hooked on the extreme adrenalin rush. Even sex paled in comparison, it just couldn't compare to the life-threatening thrill of surviving a crazy accident. So he developed his own twisted version of sex, or the closest he can get to sex and still feel exhilaration, mixing these terrifying thrills with beautiful young women. I think that's rather a cool background story his character.

I hope you've enjoyed these three weeks of Death Proof madness! Thanks again to all those who have taken the time to tell me they enjoyed these little write ups. And thanks my girlfriend for getting us both tickets to the event (somehow miraculously stumbling across them just as they went on sale!). Cheerio!

Tarantino 'Death Proof' - London Q&A: Pt 2

2007-09-15T15:22:00.005Z

This is the second part of my write up of the Death Proof Q&A with Quentin Tarantino and Zoe Bell that I was luckily enough to attend. (The first part can be read here.) I've tried to address the most commonly talked about aspects of the film at the moment. Apologies if it's a bit rambling and not immediately compelling.

Other parts: Part One - Part Three

Spoilers below!

Death Proof vs Grindhouse
At the moment, wherever Death Proof is being discussed by movie fans, there seems to be someone complaining that they're being forced to 'double dip' on DVD because Death Proof and Grindhouse are "obviously" going to be released separately on DVD, and that the only reason they're not able to buy Grindhouse right away is because it flopped in US cinemas, and they're trying to get everyone to buy it twice: First as a stand-alone movie, then in a Grindhouse boxset. Now while there is some truth that UK and Australian cinema-goers were deprived of a theatrical release of Grindhouse because of its lack-lustre US box-office, it's not the case when it comes to any DVD releases. Nobody, believe it or not, is being forced to 'double dip'. (Remember the rumours about 'six different versions of Kill Bill to be released in a year'? Yep, we're still waiting...)

Death Proof 'Extended' on DVD (a confusing title) is actually just Death Proof. You see, as Tarantino explained at the Q&A, he made Death Proof, Rodriguez made Planet Terror and together they made Grindhouse. Three separate entities.

Tarantino revealed that the only way he would ever have agreed to edit his film down to 90 minutes for use in Grindhouse was simply because he knew that his longer cut would be the one that was going to be seen in most of the cinemas of the world (Grindhouse, it seems, was never set for a worldwide theatrical release) and the one that was going to be released everywhere on DVD. Quite simply, without those stipulations, he never would have agreed to it. He also added that while he was editing for Grindhouse he had to make sure that he was serving the experience of Grindhouse, and not his film.

So, to try and make this absolutely clear, and in contrast to the many misinformed reviewers and film commentators out there: The release of the longer, separate cut of Death Proof was not a 'studio' decision. It was nothing to do with Grindhouse being a failure in the US (except in the one or two countries that were originally set to get Grindhouse at their cinemas). It was planned from day one.

Tarantino talked about how proud he is of the film he's made, and how he cares about it (and how, realistically, could he not? It's something he spent years of his life creating, and this is the version he wanted people to consider his). The longer version of Death Proof is his film. Grindhouse was a film he made with Rodriguez.

In my mind at least, Grindhouse is a truly cinema experience, not a home theatre one and I really don't see the point in trying to recreate it on your sofa on your own. (I could be wrong.)

(It's worth noting that while Tarantino admitted Kill Bill was separated into two films under pressure from the Weinsteins, he discussed how he refused to buckle under the same pressure for Grindhouse. He also said that the reason the merged cut of Kill Bill has been so long coming was because he actually felt rather happy about it being two films. Whatever resistance he might have originally had to the idea of splitting The Bride's escapades into two parts were clearly long gone, and he happily shrugged and said that he felt that it had worked great as two films and was actually very glad he'd done it. He also made it clear that if he hadn't been able to release his version of Death Proof that he would have been very upset indeed.)

Leading on from this, he also went on to explain why the Grindhouse fake trailers (shot by people like Eli Roth and Rob Zombie and originally shown between Planet Terror and Death Proof as 'upcoming attractions') were not being included with the separate releases of the films.

Quite simply, as I've already said, the directors are very happy with Grindhouse and they don't want to see it die. Tarantino explained that one way to definitely kill it (and to disrespect it, really) would be to sell off its parts wholesale. If the trailers had been split and included with the separate releases of Death Proof and Planet Terror then it would have been one less reason to watch Grindhouse, and therefore one less reason for it to exist.

Tarantino told a funny story about when they received a polite letter from the distributors asking them to include the trailers in the international cinema showings of Death Proof and Planet Terror. It went something like this:

"We'd really like to to include the Grindhouse trailers for our audiences. We fully understand and support the 'grindhouse' aesthetic of these films and we believe that putting two trailers on each of the films would enhance this 'grindhouse' feeling for the audience. Also, we know that a lot of people want to see the trailers, so we feel it would be giving the audience what they want..." etc., etc.

Apparently before Tarantino could even think about replying, he turned the page to read Rodriguez's reply:

"If you're so keen to give the audience the 'grindhouse' experience, and understand and fully support the 'grindhouse' aesthetic, and you want to give the audience what they want... THEN FUCKING RELEASE GRINDHOUSE!"

So apparently Death Proof is Death Proof. Grindhouse is Grindhouse. And you probably shouldn't listen to the people who try to convince you otherwise.

Why They Didn't Just Stop the Car
Moving on from all this controversy (but which unfortunately seems to be dominating online discussion about the film - there must be a term somewhere for this ignorance generated, internet hyped, mass confusion that's become all too common to surf across), into something else entirely. There was inevitably and unfortunately at least one idiot in the audience who felt it was their right to argue with Tarantino. It's something about London, I swear. I've had most of my experiences with these people in Greenwich (no idea why, I'm sure there's lots of lovely people there) and they look like nice normal, ordinary people, except when they talk, it's clear that their brains have been re-wired so that they're incapable of being anything other than totally obnoxious.

Excuse me while I try to explain the type of person I'm referring to: In one such experience I remember standing at a bar, when the person next to me started to aggressively tell a taken-aback bartender that the film he's just seen was actually 'very good'.

It doesn't matter that this person was in the bar a few hours earlier and, unsure of what to go and watch, had asked the bartender his opinion was of a film. This bartender, making friendly banter, had said the film in question wasn't as good as the book, but that it was still quite good. Apparently this bartender had been horrifically misinformed and, although this other person hadn't actually read the original book, he'd decided to come back into the peaceful bar to threateningly tell the bartender what an idiot he was. It wasn't 'quite' good, he said through gritted teeth with finger pointed, it was 'very' good, and he should get his facts straight.

I apologise on behalf of the nicer side of London for these idiots. I also apologise to you for digressing so much, but hopefully it might give you an idea of what this person was like, which I'd have probably been unable to convey otherwise.

So, this person asked the following question: "Why do you set your films up to get the audience worked up, make it tense, believable and engaging, and then suddenly ruin it?".

Confusion and shock to this obviously aggressive question. The interviewer tries to move on quickly but Tarantino, quite surprisingly, calmly says, "No, no, I want to understand his question", and turning to the guy, "What do you mean?".

Now we get to the actual point of his statement, which is really what this guy should have asked, in a nicer tone, from the beginning: "Why didn't they just stop the car while Zoe was on the hood?".

Now, to be fair, this is a question that had drifted through my mind and had taken me out of the moment during the film's climax on at least one viewing, but it was asked in such a rude and inappropriate way that I, and others in the audience, couldn't help but squirm.

Thankfully, and surprisingly to me, Tarantino took it all in his stride and kept his cool. "One or two few people have asked me that", he replied, "but really, apart from two seconds, when they're in the ditch, they don't have time". The likeable Zoe Bell jumped in at this point and explained more fully. As being the person who was actually on the hood of the car, she pointed out, she was really in a unique position to explain what the character's options actually were.

She explained that it had taken literally half a mile of extremely gradual slowing down after each filmed take in order to stop her from flying off the hood of the car. Any slight increase over this, even if it was only a second, and she would literally feel as though she was about to be thrown off. There was no way that they could have slowed down without her being tossed in front of a moving vehicle.

Tarantino piped back in to ask the guy, jokingly and with bonhomie, if he had been chased by a homicidal maniac while Zoe was on the hood of his car, and really, until anyone had been in that situation, they couldn't honestly say how they'd react under the stress.

Zoe added that, if you think about it, when you're being chased by someone who's trying to kill you, that slowing down isn't really going to throw them off, especially when the homicidal maniac is right there. He's still going to try and kill you by any means necessary!

Both Zoe and Tarantino agreed that the character's aim was to get far enough ahead of Stuntman Mike for them then to slow down and get Zoe off the hood.

Although I was upset by the rudeness of the audience member, I was actually very glad the question was asked. The answer, once explained, does make a lot of sense, and it will certainly increase my enjoyment of future viewings. I suppose it might have been nice if Tracie Thoms had had a line that reminded the audience that Zoe didn't have anything to restrain her, or maybe those two seconds in the ditch trimmed from the movie, but at least now I know!

This is, inevitably, where the idiot pipes up again: "But they could have just stopped", he yells, sans microphone. Groans across the cinema.

Moving on, someone else asked Tarantino to name any films he'd be embarrassed to admit he'd not seen. Perhaps he was too embarrassed to list any specifically but he went on to talk about Fellini and European directors that he'd had difficulty enjoying. He made rather a interesting observation that he felt it was a mistake to go straight for films that are considered "classics" or the auteur's best.

He said that to really appreciate such films you have to have watched the director's earlier ones to fully understand what they were trying to capture. If you actually followed their career it would put their films into a context that most modern viewers miss (going straight for the "classics" listed on best movie lists, as they often do). He said he'd felt that he'd made a mistake doing this himself and had missed out on enjoying them fully, or perhaps even understanding why they were so revered.

I found this quite an interesting idea, as my girlfriend and I have been working out way through the IMDb's top 250 films list, with an eye on concentrating on the more obscure, older or foreign titles, and now I'm wondering if we're going about it all the wrong way.

There's still a few things that Tarantino talked about that I've not mentioned, so I'll probably put these in a Part Three at some point. Things I've not mentioned are Tarantino's favourite characters (out of the ones he's created), the reason why he has mixed feelings about Jackie Brown, what he thinks of Rob Zombie's new Halloween and other minor things. If you've got any questions, I'll try and answer them for you in the meantime.

Tarantino 'Death Proof' - London Q&A: Pt 1

2007-09-15T12:59:00.004Z

I was lucky enough to get tickets to the London Death Proof Q&A with Quentin Tarantino and Zoe Bell held at the Ritzy Brixton. Here's part one of my impressions and recollections.

Other parts: Part Two - Part Three

Firstly I have to say how pleased I was that Tarantino came across as a smart, intelligent guy. There have been times in the past when I've seen him waffling on during interviews, and I wonder if he really knows what he's talking about, or he's just talking fast enough and long enough in the hope that no-one will notice. Thankfully it seems this isn't the case, and as the Q&A session progressed, he seemed more and more comfortable, coherent and insightful.

I learnt many things about Death Proof itself, too, and his comments actually changed my mind about the film, which I had been ambivalent about at that point, and made me really appreciate how well structured it is.

Let me just say that I'm going to get spoilerific right now and Death Proof is NOT a film that you want spoiled. What little storyline there is works much better when you don't know what's coming, so please, trust me, go watch Death Proof and then come back. (You won't appreciate what's being said until you've seen the film anyway, so it's not worth spoiling it for yourself.)

Right, now that's out of the way, I'm spoiling everything: When I first saw Death Proof I thought that it was a substandard attempt to copy Psycho. The set-up is essentially the same (as it is with many other slasher movies, to be fair), young woman (or women, in the case of Death Proof) get murdered, in an extremely shocking scene, by a guy that you don't expect to be a murderer.

The second half of the film is spent watching, hoping, that he doesn't strike again.

Now, like I said, I thought this was a substandard attempt to copy Psycho. With Psycho you knew from the outset that there was well, a psychopath waiting to strike. Alfred Hitchcock even explained almost the entire film's plot away in the movie's advertising. This was done, in my mind, to make the first chunk of Psycho (before the shower scene) more tense. The audience knew what was coming, they just didn't know when.

When the violence comes in Death Proof, it's a shock. Out of the blue, "no way", utter shock, and I kind of felt that if the audience had been given a hint at what was coming (maybe even an overheard police radio discussing vehicular homicide) that the first half of Death Proof would have been more compelling.

From Tarantino's comments, however, I realised that the shock was completely and utterly deliberate. Not only that, but more importantly, it was necessary for the second half to be truly scary and compelling. As Tarantino put it, "I spend the first half of the film getting you to trust me, then I pull the rug out and show you that you can't trust me at all". By doing this, the danger is ramped up for the second group of girls. Anything could happen, and as Tarantino pointed out, it would have been perfectly dramatically correct to allow Zoe to die, which ups the ante in the viewer's mind even further.

I was pleased to hear this explained and it made me appreciate that Death Proof's slow dialogue scenes are in fact completely deliberate. Tarantino is persuading us that he's not about to kill off these girls, we've spent too much time getting to know them! Maybe one or two might die, but not all of them!

The other thing I noticed when I watched with an audience was that the first half is creepy. It is sinister, and you do expect something bad to happen to the girls at the hands of the mysterious Stuntman Mike. You don't need that overheard police radio letting you know that something bad is going to happen. Unless, like me, you expected Kurt Russell to be the anti-hero, it's actually pretty obvious from the get go what's going to happen... and Tarantino spends the next 30 minutes slowly, masterfully trying to convince you that, against your better judgement, you're wrong.

Tarantino went on to explain that during his research of watching classic car-chases while writing Death Proof, he realised that the most effective car-chases, the ones where the audience is really emotionally involved, are the ones where we want the car to catch the people they're chasing. He mentioned the French Connection as an example, as opposed to say, something like The Blues Brothers, where the good guys are trying to escape.

This helped shape Death Proof's two-tier car chase: At first the good guys are being chased, and the audience is looking through their fingers at Zoe's near death experiences, then half-way through, the tables are turned and we're given a totally different experience. We're on the edge of our seats, excited, wanting the girls to "get him!".

It was very interesting to hear him explain the reasons for something which I'd completely taken for granted. There was actually a lot of thought and reason gone into the plot structure of Death Proof that I'd imagined, and it made me appreciate it a lot more. As Tarantino put it, the 70's exploitation idea was just his "jumping off" point, and after that, the film becomes something else.

It's not quite a slasher movie, it's not quite a car chase movie, it's not even really a 70's exploitation film, and it uses the low expectations of the audience expecting these things, to its advantage.

I still can see flaws in two aspects of Death Proof, however. Firstly, Psycho has a much stronger McGuffin, than Death Proof. With Tarantino's film we're almost bored. Yes, there's a few lose stories, but they're nowhere near as compelling as a woman who's just stolen money from her boss so she can't start a new life with her lover. Instead it's a bunch of things we're not really that interested in. It almost goes without saying that if the stories in the first half of the film do work for you, then Death Proof works much better as a film.

The second point is a single shot in the film where the "ship's mast" car is shown to have come to a stand-still, and then slowly start accelerating. The tension really drops, and it's almost like you wish you hadn't seen it.

This is discussed in more detail by Tarantino himself in Part Two.

To come: Why the Grindhouse trailers weren't included in the theatrical (and DVD) releases of Death Proof and Planet Terror, why they couldn't have stopped and let Zoe back in the car, and Tarantino dealing with an obnoxious audience member. Read all about it in Part Two...

Review: Death Proof Extended and Unrated DVD

2007-09-14T20:40:00.001Z

I've had this DVD since the 8th and have been attempting to review it (well, Death Proof) since then. I've now given up and am just posting what I write off the top of my head (apologies in advance).

Death Proof's review has proved elusive because of its long and complicated history, so let's get that out of the way first: For those who don't know, Quentin Tarantino's Death Proof was originally intended to be seen in the US, UK and some other countries, along with Robert Rodriguez's Planet Terror in a unique, retro double-bill called Grindhouse. Both of those two films were cut down to 90 minutes, they got some famous horror directors to put together some fake trailers for 70's exploitation style movies, and they packaged the whole thing as one long, crazy, experience.

The US audiences didn't like it, it flopped and major theatrical release of Grindhouse was pulled from other countries. As to why it flopped, nobody knows. Rodriguez claims it was because the TV advertising confused cinemagoers. Tarantino, more philosophically, thinks it's because people just didn't want to watch two films back-to-back in the cinema ("man, I've got shit to do today!"). Others have speculated that it was just too "out there" for audiences, being as it was, an homage to an obscure and unpopular niche (70's exploitation cinema).

I personally speculate that Tarantino's core audience Rodriguez's core audience don't necessarily crossover as much as people think, and prospect of having to sit through a film from a director you're not that bothered about just to watch a director you are that bothered about, wasn't an enticing one.

Whatever the reason, its pull from cinemas left UK and Australian audiences fuming. Instead of the full Grindhouse experience, however, both films are being released theatrically in their longer, director preferred cuts, separately.

This DVD includes the this longer cut, which was always going to be released on DVD the world over.

The first thing to say is that thankfully, the idea of Death Proof being an homage to guilty pleasures comes across immediately. Even outside of the Grindhouse experience, the retro opening titles, with all their bad cuts, scratches, dirt and deliberate jumps, get the message across clearly and leave you with a smile on your face.

The second thing to say is that yes, this longer cut, is the better of the two versions. The much talked about "missing reel" from the Grindhouse version has been, ahem, "found" and reinserted back into the film, creating this version's first compelling moment.

Aside from that though, most of the extra twentyodd minutes is additional dialogue, which, while not adding any new amazing scenes, does help flesh out the characters a little more (in an indirect way) and gives us some classic Tarantino dialogue, too. The second half almost suffers from too much conversation, but just as you're just about to get tired, the finale kicks in (no extra footage there, though).

This is the version that Tarantino always wanted to us to see, but he was happy to sacrifice his favourite moments in order to make Grindhouse work better as a whole, knowing that one day we'd all be watching this version.

Eagle-eyed viewers will notice one small edit (yes, a removal of a few lines!) and one different take, but in both cases they are improvements.

If you're not familiar with Grindhouse and are completely new to Death Proof, then let me begin as I would have if I hadn't had to explain all of the above. Tarantino's fifth film is (or at least starts as) a tongue-in-cheek attempt to capture the atmosphere of a low budget 70's slasher movie. It's got the innocent girls talking about boys, the lurking danger and the almost non-existent plot. Staying true to its origins, when the violence and action comes, there is no use of CGI. This is truly an old school treat.

That's not to say that Death Proof is flawed or too simple. It's actually a lot cleverer in its structure than you might realise and is hugely entertaining to boot, even if it owes a lot more to Psycho than it does to any forgotten slasher movies.

Kurt Russell is brilliant as the mysterious Stuntman Mike and its shocking to know that he wasn't the first choice for the role. This is a brilliant addition to Russell's rogue gallery of characters, along with Escape from New York's Snake Plissken and The Thing's MacReady.

"The Gals" (as they're referred to in the opening credits) are all great, too. Vanessa Ferlito, Rosario Dawson, Rose McGown and newcomer Zoe Bell shine in particularly. The cast as a whole work perfectly together, too, which given the large amount of ensemble conversations is extremely fortunate. The chemistry appears so good amongst the cast that you can't imagine they didn't have fun filming Death Proof.

You'll forgive me if I seem to be deliberately avoiding talking about the plot, it is, as I've said, so simplistic that frankly there's nothing to be gained by telling you about it. Just go and watch and enjoy if you're outside of the US or buy, watch and enjoy if you're in.

Audio/Visual
By now I'm sure you've come to expect, as I have, a pretty decent treatment for films on DVD, and thankfully Death Proof is no different. If anything I'd have to say that, apart from the obvious loss of detail, the picture quality is actually better than the brand new cinema print I watched last week. The blacks are nice and black, but the image isn't too dark (as it was in the cinema), creating good contrast with shadow detail. The colours are perfectly captured, and so are all the deliberate scratches, bits of dirt and other artefacts.

The same goes for the sound (although I have to say, listening to it full volume in the cinema was most impressive). The deep engine growls cry out for a system with decent bass and loud speakers. Like the plot structure, the audio is deceptively simple.

Extras
As with Kill Bill, it seems like extras are not really what this DVD release is about, despite having a second disc dedicated to them. On the first disc you get the International Trailer (gives everything away) and a Poster Gallery (especially uninspiring).

The second disc is made up of short featurettes, which do provide some sense of background for the film when viewed together. I'm not really sure what a feature length documentary or commentary could have provided for a film like Death Proof, unless it delved into its Grindhouse beginnings... which none of the included documentaries do, unfortunately.

Stunts on Wheels: The Legendary Drivers of Death Proof (20mins) - A short piece on the old school drivers they used for the car chase. Some of the things they did seem almost let down by the film itself (for example the "near miss" they talk about is not very impressive in the final film).

Introducing Zoe Bell (9 mins) - An interesting explanation as to why one of the actresses does some amazing stunts.

Kurt Russell as Stuntman Mike (10mins) - A short piece on how great Kurt Russell is as Stuntman Mike (he is, but ten minutes of this isn't totally necessary, but I guess any shorter and it would have felt equally pointless).

Finding Quentin's Gals (20mins) - Another short piece on how each of the women were cast by Tarantino.

"Baby It's You" sung by Mary Elizabeth Winstead (2mins) - A short outtake from the film showcasing Winstead's surprisingly good voice.

The Guys of Death Proof (8mins) - A smaller piece on how the guys were cast (did you know that Eli Roth was one of them?).

Quentin's Greatest Collaborator: Editor Sally Menke (5mins) - An extremely short piece were Tarantino thanks his editor, and some snippets which are the closest to outtakes/goofs as this DVD gets.

Double Dare trailer - A trailer for the documentary that shows Zoe Bell's story and one that possibly led to Tarantino casting her.

A lot of people are probably annoyed that there's no mention of Grindhouse nor any of the fake trailers which were originally shown between the two features. The reason for this is actually quite hopeful; Tarantino and Rodriquez see Grindhouse as a separate entity don't want to do it a disservice by just selling off its parts. As such, this DVD is about Death Proof, not Grindhouse.

They both love Grindhouse and want it to keep alive, and the only way to do that is to keep whatever unique elements it has, to itself. This means, thankfully, that Grindhouse will indeed keep floating around cinemas all over the world once its two halves have had their separate releases. Ultimately its life will probably be one closer to the low-budget 70's it pretends to emulate, appearing in lesser known cinemas for sporadic (hopefully late night) showings.

Final thoughts
If you're familiar with Grindhouse and liked it, you'll love this. If you're new to Death Proof (meaning you're probably reading from outside the US) go see it at the cinema first (it's great with a good crowd) and then come back and import this DVD.

It may not be Tarantino's greatest work, but it's his most playful, joyous and outright fun.

FILM: B+
AUDIO/VISUAL: A
EXTRAS: C

Recommended (for the film itself and presentation more than anything else).

Bioshock: DirectX 10/Vista black screen problem FIX

2007-08-27T00:17:00.000Z

I'm sure you'll all be happy to hear that I had a good holiday despite all of the problems in my previous post. Despite the fact that we stayed in the grubbiest, dirtiest, most run-down youth hostel in the western hemisphere (my fault), we all managed to get used to it and have a great time. I even managed to get some surfing in (I'm still crap at it). Plus, I've just been refunded the money from my bank - yay! In fact, the trip itself was quite revelatory, in a personal way... Anyway, I digress.

This is just a quick post for the thousands of people struggling to run the recently released game, Bioshock, and hopefully, if you're searching for a solution, this might be the one for you. (If not, then there's little of interest below - sorry!)

For myself, this is the problem I've been having: In Windows Vista with a DirectX 10 graphics card, the game crashes to an faint (almost black) loading screen after I've chosen the difficulty level.

The first workaround was to run the game in DirectX 9 mode (right click Bioshock's icon in Vista's Game Profiles screen and choose 'Play DirectX 9'). This worked long enough for me to get to the Medical Pavilion, but then it crashed horribly, plus it was kind of annoying not being able to take full advantage of DirectX 10. The second workaround involved running the game in windowed mode, which for some reason worked fine.

Never mind all that though, because here is the 100% solution to the black screen hanging problem in Vista (the solution is actually step 4, but it's worth doing 1-3 while you're at it):

1. Firstly, if you're running an Intel based motherboard, download and install the latest INF files for it. This is very simple, thankfully, using Intel's INF Utility program.

2. Next up, make sure you're running the versions of the NVidia drivers listed for Bioshock on the NZone website.

3. Then make sure you're running the latest version of DirectX for Vista by installing the updater from Microsoft's website. (There was a recent update, so you should definitely do this.)

Now for the real fix:

4. Go to Control Panel. Then choose Programs, followed by Turn Windows Features On or Off. Uncheck Tablet PC Optional Components and restart your computer when you're asked to.

That's it! You should be able use Fullscreen with DirectX 10 and the game should run fine now, if you've been having same the problem I've been (there are many different problems with Bioshock, unfortunately, so this may not help you at all). Hopefully the patch will stop the need to disable the optional components (which, incidentally don't stop you using your graphics tablet, should you have one), but for the time being... enjoy!

Thanks to Nobula for discovering this and sharing it with us all! (Sadly due to the chaos of the 2k technical support forums, it was lost almost immediately.)

Sunny, beach holiday blues...

2007-08-04T08:39:00.001Z

Is it just me or am I having a really bad run of luck? I know it's nothing catastrophic and I know there's people out there going through worse, but! I'm beginning to feel like I'm cursed at the moment...

Tomorrow I leave for Newquay for a holiday I've had booked since March. It's the longest I've ever had a holiday planned in my life, and in theory, having given myself so much time to prepare, everything should go smoothly, right?

The trip is for two weeks and it's supposed to be a relaxing reunion of old friends mingled with some attempts at surfing. In fact, I've been so looking forward to the trying-to-surf part that I've pre-booked the equipment for the whole two weeks.

The main goal of this trip was always to de-stress, and given some recent events in my personal life, it couldn't have come along at a better time.

So, what could go wrong?

Well, two weeks ago I woke up with a crick in my neck which took two days to go away. Not a big deal (other than how surprisingly painful it was), these things happen from time to time, after all. Bizarrely, though, it decided to return this week as I was leaving a particularly stressful day at work. By the time I'd ridden the tube home my neck was killing me again. As I write this, four days later, I'm still turning my whole upper-body to look at things, like some badly designed robot. What the hell?

A crick in the neck, it turns out, is a stretched ligament which can take 10 - 14 days to heal fully, if you're sensible. I don't remember not being sensible at any point, but in some unknown way I must have agitated it, and it's decided to come back. With a vengeance. I'm hoping to prove medical science wrong, but even the most optimistic person has to admit that it puts a bit of a dampener on my ambition of spending the next two weeks surfing - I don't think it's covered under 'sensible'. (I have images of damaging it further and being, not only a self-conscious amateur, but the only surfer in a neck-brace.)

Now, ok, that's annoying, but when you add the following to the mix, you can understand why I'm feeling particularly unlucky at the moment: Last week I discovered that someone in Croatia has stolen £865 ($1,740) from my bank account using a fake debit card.

All my holiday money.

Bloody hell. I've never even been to Croatia, let alone knowingly shared my PIN number with someone from there, and yet I'm told they must have gotten it somehow. Still, thankfully I should get my money back. The only problem is that it's going to take the HSBC several weeks to investigate my claim. Brilliant, except, if you recall, I leave tomorrow.

All is not lost, in theory, as I still have my overdraft from my long gone student days and some kindly friends have even offered to lend me money. Again, fantastic, except I had to cancel my debit card when I reported the fraud, so I no longer have any access to any money.

Luckily I gave the HSBC a week's notice to send me my replacement, which was just long enough for me to get it before I left, or at least it would have been if there didn't happen to be a mail strike on this week.

No card, no money, and I'm off tomorrow morning.

Oh, and I did I mention the shark?

So much for planning in advance. Next time I'm booking it last minute and flying by the seat of my pants. In fact, for my next holiday I might just turn up at the train station/airport blindfolded and ask the person behind the desk to surprise me. As a friend once said to me; if you don't make any plans, nothing can technically go 'wrong'.

I know there are worse things happening out there, and you might well be going through much more difficult things yourself, but considering how much I've been looking forward to de-stressing over the next two weeks, I can't help but feel the irony.

Film review: Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix

2007-07-17T10:22:00.001Z

The fifth Harry Potter book has a bad reputation amongst fans. You'd be hard pushed to find anyone who truly enjoyed the first third of the book (which is slow and uninvolving), and even when it breaks free of its badly executed beginning, the ending it presents is not as much of a revelation as the author seems to wish we'd find it, either.

The good thing about movies though, is that the old maxim "bad books make great movies" is very often true, and so it is here. While the original book isn't necessarily "bad", it's probably the least loved, and once it's stripped of the unnecessary bits, what's left is quite an interesting political thriller, of sorts. Ignore the critics who have moaned about "Harry Potter losing its magic"; its supposed lack of "magical" qualities is directly down to the original book, and a deliberate decision by Rowling. The story is a slow, but tense exploration of the self-blinkered behaviour of people who refuse to accept an ugly truth, and would rather turn the harmless into a threat, than have to face up to what they fear most.

I wish I could say that directorial newcomer, David Yates, is instrumental to the film's successes, but sadly the film appears to show a director unsure of himself. This isn't to say that the film is poor; far from it, Yates is just extremely lucky that everyone else working on Harry Potter knows exactly what they're doing. It's the little in-between moments, where the director should be making sure that everything feels coherent, that his failings are visible. From the badly explained and confusing plot points (why not just use the mind scanning spell, seen later in the film, to prove that Harry had seen Voldemort?), to the poor performances from those who are clearly in desperate need of some direction, to the film's awful opening sequences and final battle (both only being saved by the special effects).

Thankfully, as I've already said, the producers of the film clearly were happy to take a chance on a cheap, inexperienced TV director, because they were well-aware that everyone else involved knew precisely how to do their jobs: The main cast is excellent, it looks fantastic, the editing, while slow, brings wonderful tension, the special effects are great (I've never seen Hogwarts look so perfect) and the script is as lean as it needed to be.

It's a little sad, though, after hearing so much about how Evannah Lynch characterised her character, Luna Lovegood, that all the lines that explain her character are completely missing. In fact, I'll bet her presence in the movie is a complete mystery to those who haven't read the book. I'm not sure why her character defining moments were removed, but I'm guessing it was either time constraints or a poor performance (or maybe just bad editing choices). Again, it's hard not to fault the director.

Thankfully for every poor moment, there's a slew of great ones to make up for it, and one of the film's happy highlights is unquestionably Imelda Staunton, who brings a wonderful dimension to her character that I don't remember even being in the original novel. She portrays Dolores Unbridge as someone who really believes she's doing the right thing. In the book I remember her being, well, just evil, (I could be wrong in my memories) but through Staunton's performance, the same dialogue reveals a character much more dangerous; someone who is doing wrong in the name of something right. She, along with the pace and plotting of the film, are easily its most enjoyable and successful aspects. In fact, it's partially Staunton's performance that makes the political elements so successful.

Of course, political tension and the necessity to concentrate throughout the film, don't always make for happy children, and, like the books, this is the first film to truly indicate the darker and more mature areas the story is about to explore.

Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix is a different type of Harry Potter film. It's not as "magical" or filled with adventure as the previous instalments, but it was never meant to be (and if it had been, it would have failed the greater story). Because of this, if you're not familiar with the books, be prepared for a different take on the world of Harry Potter. If you are a fan of Rowling's work, you'll probably be very satisfied with this latest effort.

Don't let the critics put you off, this is a very enjoyable Potter film, which given the source (perhaps the least enjoyable Potter book), is a very nice surprise. Recommended.

- "Good"

Explanation of my unusual rating system: 'No stars' = Average/missable, '1 star' = Has some merit, '2 stars' = Good, '3 stars' = Excellent, and finally '4 stars' = A milestone of the medium (very rare).

The Selfish Gene: That difficult first chapter

2007-07-01T18:45:00.002Z

Richard Dawkins seems to enjoy ruffling feathers. Recently he's appeared to especially enjoy it when they're feathers belonging to someone who considers themselves religious. If it's not the brazenness he displays at writing The God Delusion, a book which, according to the introduction, was written in order to, um, "save" people from some sort of religious enslavement, then it's the vocal complaint that he was nominated for a book award alongside the Christian comedian Peter Kaye ("How can you take seriously someone who likes to believe something because he finds it 'comforting'?").

Back in 1976, with the publication of the highly acclaimed The Selfish Gene, he didn't focus entirely on the religious, but he still had an extremely unapologetic writing style; "keep up or tough luck" seemed to be his attitude. It's this attitude which I think might be partially responsible for The Selfish Gene developing its controversial reputation: If you miss something, it's easy to get the wrong end of the stick, especially with the book's potentially confusing first chapter (not to mention its title).

Is Dawkins really arguing that all humans are fundamentally selfish, and perhaps even that being selfish is 'natural', or worse, 'right'? For some reason, the intentions of the first chapter eluded me the first time around, so, with this in mind, I've decided to explain what I misinterpreted and misunderstood, assuming that, as Dawkins suggests in his endnotes, that I'm not the only who has ever gotten the wrong end of the stick. I hope it helps others besides me!

This is what Dawkins appears to be saying in no uncertain terms in the first chapter of The Selfish Gene:

People are "born selfish". This is the same for all of us. Our own survival is of the utmost importance. Above all else, in fact. Our genes, and by extension, 'nature', tell us not to help others if it is at a potential detriment to ourselves. This is the 'natural' state for human-beings.

It's very harsh sounding isn't it? It comes across as a bit of a grim look at humanity and it has upset a few people over the years, but is it really that controversial? Let's put it into the context that Dawkins seems to have well, almost deliberately, skated around: We're not talking about lending people money. We're not talking about letting them borrow a DVD. We're not talking about giving them a lift to the airport or donating to charity. We're talking, in simple terms, about life and death.

In a life or death situation, our genes tell us to high-tail it out of there and survive. So ingrained and recognisable is this trait within us, that we praise those who fight this instinct and risk their own lives to save others. We call them heroes. It's the highest praise that most of us could probably imagine giving anyone. We all know the potential sacrifice, we all know how brave and selfless a person needs to be in order to risk their own safety in order to save someone else.

When you think about the above, initially harsh-sounding, paragraph in those terms - in terms of throwing yourself in front of a bullet to save someone's life - it doesn't sound so explosive, does it?

If you're still not convinced that the above paragraph is true, then Dawkins offers a scientific theory as an example: If a community made up entirely of altruistic (pre-)people was attacked by a neighbouring community, the first ones to be attacked would stay and fight in order to let the others get away. They would automatically lay down their lives in order to ensure the other members of the community lived on.

What if, however, over thousands of years of genetic mutation, someone was born into the community who was fundamentally selfish in the way described above? That is to say, that this person, upon fearing attack, would immediately try to save their own skin, regardless of the rest of the community? Someone who would immediately flee at the first signs of danger, instead of staying and fighting in order to increase the chance of other's safe escape? Provided that person was the only person in the community with such selfish attributes, they would always survive attacks, as the altruistic members would sacrifice themselves in order to save those who could escape. By doing so, they would be ensuring that that selfish gene within that person would always survive, or at least, survive for some time.

Over that time the person could proliferate, spreading their "selfish gene" around the tribe, and creating more "selfish" members of the community. These people would, in theory, be more likely to survive attacks, as long as there were altruistic members willing to fight for them. Eventually, the altruistic genes within the tribe would begin to decrease in number, and the "selfish" ones would dominate.

You may be thinking, "ah, but that's when the community would fail" and you're possibly right, but, of course, things aren't really so black and white and our genes don't always control our behaviour. Dawkins doesn't offer a counter-argument to the idea that the important benefits of living as a community might be negated by being comprised of entirely selfish members, except with the implication that, over a long enough period, genetic altruism would essentially "die out", meaning it couldn't survive.

All of this isn't to say that such altruism doesn't exist in nature, or in humans. It does. That's also not to say that we don't have control over the urges of our genes. We do.

Altruism can be seen, for example, in animal behaviour; many species of bird, once having spotted a predator, will start making warning noises in order to alert other birds in the vicinity of the imminent danger. By doing this they're also making themselves a much more likely target for attack. In other animals, mothers can be observed deliberately attracting the attention of a predator in order to draw it away from their defenseless young, obviously at great personal risk. (Dawkins promises to explain such examples of altruism in nature in later chapters.)

We also have control over our genes. As Dawkins points out, we foil our gene's desire to replicate every time we use contraception. Another example of humans fighting their genetic instinct are the firefighters of 9/11 who went back to the Twin Towers in order to try and save stranger's lives. These brave people must have had an incredible desire for their own safety and security, but overrode those feelings with a conscious decision to help others. As I said before, we see these people as heroes (and rightly so), because we know how much sacrifice, will-power and bravery it must have taken to do such a thing.

So, the next time you read Dawkins arguing that our genes tell us all to be selfish, hopefully now the context in which he actually means it, will make his point a little less abrasive.

Gaming review scores: %%%% off!

2007-06-05T23:00:00.002Z

Oh, percentage scores... Why we do we have them? How did they ever become so popular? Sure, at the end of a review it's nice to have those 1,000 words distilled into a simple grade, but one to a 100, that's a little excessive, isn't it? Is a game worthy of 81% or 82%? Who can actually argue such a fine difference?

In my experience reading magazines, I usually come away from a review with one of these five distinct reactions:

1. "Wow! If they're right, that looks like it might become the next Half-Life." (double checks to make sure it's not an 'Official' magazine of any sort/hopes the reviewer isn't being bribed by the game company)

2. "Looks amazing. I think I'll have to pick that up."

3. "Hmm. Looks good, but it didn't get top marks. I might pick it up if it's cheap."

4 . "What a disappointing score, unless I'm absolutely in love with this type of game and/or franchise, I'm going to give it a miss".

5. "I'm not buying that!"

With these five distinct reactions, why do we need 99 different scores? Why do we even need ten?

To me personally, a percentage score equates to the above reactions something like this:

#1 is reserved for a game that scores 97% or higher.
#2 is reserved for a game that scores 90% or higher.
#3 for 80% or higher.
#4 70% or higher.
#5 Anything below 70%.

I'm sure it's different for you, but to me, if the score is below 70% it may as well be 1%; I'm not buying the game based on the strength of the review.

Of course, the argument for keeping percentage scores is that people are used to them (even marks out of ten sort of equate to them), and they're right; people are used to them, but does that mean that a new system can never be introduced?

I'm not sure if anyone reading this is familiar with Halliwell's Film Guide (if not; it's an excellent reference book about movies - think the IMdB in book-form), in it, Leslie Halliwell developed a scoring system that, at first, confused and upset me, but once I got used to it, I realised how perfectly suited it was.

This was it:

- "Equally unremarkable or missable". (That's right, no stars.)

- "Contains things of merit, but overall, flawed".

- "Good".

- "Excellent".

- "A milestone in filming history." (Something that's difficult to assess immediately, really, but that doesn't put off gaming mags trying.)

His system can be boiled down to two excellent observations:

1. A scoring system should only really capture the reactions of the reader with its grades - additional grades are pointless (and too little grades, therefore, aren't good enough either).
2. The system shouldn't bother wasting time grading badness, as it means nothing to the reader; bad is bad, it doesn't matter to what degree.

It's a pretty unique system that I've never seen anywhere else, and yet it appears to be perfectly suited to the reviewing format. Why isn't it more popular?

It would be great if a similar scoring system could find its way into the gaming world, but for the time being it looks like we're all stuck with percentages. Thank god the once popular separate scores for graphics, sound and 'playability' (what is 'playability' anyway?) have gone. Maybe there's hope that percentage scores might go the same way, one day.

My graphics tablet arrived today...!

2007-05-29T18:09:00.001Z

Yes! My Wacom Intuos 3 arrived a few hours ago. (Happy birthday to me!) This is the first drawing I've ever done with any sort of graphics tablet, completed just a few minutes ago. It's not great, in fact it's pretty lame, but it was damn fun! Can't believe I didn't invest in one sooner!

(Apologies for the lameness of this post... Just pretty excited! I have one useful thing to add: If you're thinking about buying a graphics tablet, don't worry about the size like I did, it turns out that A5 is absolutely perfect!)
------------------------------------------------------
In other news, Wrestlevania has written a response to my post about Peter Molyneux and 'emotional' gaming in his blog, and gives some interesting examples of how such a system might possibly work in a game like Fable. (Go give it a read for goodness sakes!)

I have to say that I'm really surprised and very happy at how my post has sparked a lot of interest and debate; thanks to everyone on the various forums I've posted it on who has commented in some way!

Peter Molyneux and the future of 'emotional' gaming

2007-05-19T16:37:00.005Z

Good old Peter Molyneux. Maverick genius. Gaming god. Someone who is always pushing the bar higher and higher. His company, Lionhead, has recently worked hard attempting to take gaming to new levels by giving a player the freedom to make moral decisions with their in-game avatar, and so shape their future into one of either "good" or "evil". The idea is that by allowing a player to decide how to react to a situation, Molyneux hopes that they will become more emotionally involved and perhaps even learn something about themselves in the process.

It's a great ambition, but in my opinion, the morally ambiguous Syndicate (1993) offered the player more moral freedom than Black & White (2001) or Fable (2004), despite these more recent games being designed specifically to offer this new type of gameplay. Is Peter Molyneux moving in the wrong direction, or am I just talking rubbish?

In Syndicate, yes, you were working for a heartless, futuristic megacorp, taking out its competitors using the most underhanded and unscrupulous methods imaginable, but at least you were free to complete your missions in any way you saw fit. Meaning you could wait for the car to pass, or blow it up and cross the road immediately without fear of recrimination, losing "good" points or growing "devil" horns.

Ok, it's not a great example of a moral dilemma, but at least the player was free to do what they wanted (provided they could handle the police response), without actually being judged for their actions. You see, as soon as you think there's some all-knowing, all-seeing deity watching over your every move, judging you, you start acting in a way to please them, instead of yourself.

The idea of being watched and judged is the very foundation of control not freedom.

It really irked me that Black & White's tag line was "Find out who you really are", as if the designers had created a flawless personality test that would reveal the truth about people. The truth is, you can't truly make an honest decision if you think the game is going to judge you for it. What if I don't feel like helping that villager right now..... Well if I don't, my "good" rating will decrease, so I guess I better had. It's not really eliciting the 'emotional response' Molyneux has talked about, or providing a decent moral quandary, but instead turning "morality" into a "points based" system, and therefore a conscious decision to play the game a particular way.

What's worse is that Black & White's two advisory characters, The Voices of "Good" and "Evil", have very explicit and self-conscious ideas about "right" and "wrong", when they really don't need to. "Evil" doesn't really exist in a real-world sense; it is usually apathy or fear or some other negative emotion that leads to actions that are later judged as wrong, rather than someone making a conscious and premeditated attempt at doing something bad.

So, instead of Black & White's The Voice of Evil saying, "Let the villagers burn, why should you care about those little creatures... you're a god!" (paraphrase), he should say, in a fed-up tone of voice, "Ohhh, do we have to help them? I'm sure they'll be able to sort it out themselves. Afterall, they survived long enough before we arrived. Why do we need to interfere for every little thing? There's such a thing as nature, afterall." Ie. Create a justifiable argument that might convince the player to do something arguably "bad". Even altering the scenarios so that players are tempted with a "fast reward" for doing something quick but not necessarily "good", would have tested a player's apathy and seen how prepared they were to do the "right" thing. Even so, the game shouldn't really recognise "good" and "bad" actions, which unfortunately, it does: Play "bad" and your citadel turns "evil" looking, play "good" and it grows wings, a halo and sprouts a rainbow, or something.

Similarly, in Fable the player should have only been judged by individual NPCs or communities of NPCs, instead of a "universal", unseen right and wrong, which then alters your character's appearance.

Neither game should have used this visual gimmick, if they wanted the player to be truly honest with themselves. Instead, if such a thing was going to be used, it would have been more interesting and true to life if it changed depending on how the NPC you were talking to viewed you (at least in Fable). For example, kill a NPC's husband and the next time you speak to her you will look "evil". Stop talking to her and you will look neutral again. Go talk to a father of the boy you saved and you will appear "angelic". If the people of a village hear of your misdeeds, you appear menacing when you enter the village, and normal again when you leave.

(If Molyneux does feel strongly about a particular moral decision, and wants his opinion heard by the player, then he could appear as a villager in the game and give his judgement the same way as everyone else!)

Removing the idea of being judged and rewarded altogether would be best, though. It would create an infinitely more interesting, mature and ultimately more emotional experience for the player. Doing so would also allow the designers to create more complex quandaries, leaving the user to make up their own mind about the "right" decision, and experience the resulting consequences.

Imagine having to seriously think about your character's reaction, rather than just making a simple, cartoony decision to play as "good" or "evil"; it could be very addictive and inspiring!

Friends and online communities might well begin arguing the "correct" action for a particular scenario in such a game, and with no-one to step in and play god, telling them who is right and wrong, we would all probably learn a lot more about ourselves in the process of discussing and justifying our decisions.

The early moral quandaries might be simple, but as your progress into the game, they become more and more of a "grey" area and hence more difficult to decide about.

I can imagine a future where games could really excel in this way, doing things that truly couldn't be followed by other media.

Of course, this shouldn't all be laid as Molyneux's feet, as if he's to blame for the lack of such a game existing! If anything I should be praising him for pushing games towards such lofty ideas, and poking at other gaming companies for not even trying to do anything new.

Who knows what the future of such games is, but fingers crossed Molyneux (or some other talented designer) will take all the ideas that Lionhead have injected into the gaming world, and turn them into something even more revolutionary.

More on copyright and art

2007-03-30T20:22:00.002Z

The more I think and read about copyrights and artists, the more I feel something desperately needs to be done.

I was listening to a podcast on that discussed the merits and drawbacks of "fan edits" of films (made popular by the so-called "Phantom Edit" of "Star Wars: The Phantom Menace"). Even though the idea of a "fan" re-editing someone else's film to suit their tastes could sound disrespectful, these sorts of projects are undertaken usually because the person cares so much about the original work in the first place. (I think you'd be hard pressed to find someone willing to spend the time to re-edit a film if they didn't care about it.) Even if they seek to "improve" it, they're only doing so because they want to love that film more.

The podcast [The Hollywood Saloon - highly recommended for fellow film geeks] really made me think just how positive such things are, and what the people involved might be able to teach themselves about editing and filmmaking, and also what they might create from such endevours. They might actually improve on the original. Even George Lucas, if I recall correctly, was very impressed with the idea that someone could create their own version of his blockbuster using household technology (the Lucas-Lawyers stepped in afterwards and said, "What Mr. Lucas meant to say was..." you can guess the rest).

I've seen fans of computer games take it upon themselves to create updates, remakes and even entire sequels to games they've loved. Small groups of people taking on masses of work, normally reserved for teams of professionals, and on top of their normal jobs, just because they love the original so much.

You might see them as ultra-geeks, but imagine the amount of passion that must be required to sustain the energy needed to create such projects.

One of my all time favourite websites, and one that helped lead me to my career as a graphic designer, was one that allowed fans of films share their own alternate covers for their DVD collections. The people on the site re-designed existing artwork in an attempt to improve what they saw as inferior packaging for a film. Sometimes it was a techinical exercise, sometimes it was an experiment, and but most of the time it was because they loved the films so much, they couldn't sit idle while their favourite films looked so ugly on their shelves.

These projects were inspired from a healthy, wholesome desire to create and driven by passion to share something with others... and completely for free, I might add. They weren't created with profit in mind. Nobody did marketing to try and find out what people "wanted" and then set about trying to create it for sale. It was done because the people involved had an idea that they wanted to see come to light, and then share it with like-minded individuals who could also hopefully appreciate it.

It's sad to say that nearly all of such projects that I've seen have been shut down by the copyright holders (including the website I loved). Not because they posed any real threat, but because, by law, a copyright holder must be seen to protect their property at all times. If they don't, then when a real threat does come along, it can be used against the copyright holder to prove that they have sent a message out that they weren't pursuing a particular copyright, and as such, that others may use it.

It's so sad that such a system exists that pretty much forces copyright holders to pursue non-threatening and non-profit projects that may infringe on their property.

Of course, I'm sure many of these projects could have been considered sub-standard when compared to the original work, thanks to limited resources and the fact that passion doesn't always equal skill. Because of this, it could be argued that some projects could be seen as a threat to the quality of the original brand. In my experience, everything from the "Phantom Edit" through to tweaks to games, are always clearly labelled by the people who made them as being what they are: Produced by and for fans. Indeed most people are proud that their work is "fan" created, and declare it loudly, leaving no confusion to those they share it with (what would be the profit in deception unless they were selling something?).

I know that this probably doesn't affect most people who read this, and the things I've talked about are probably considered "lower" forms of art, but they're examples of how something positive and creative can be ruined by law, and that saddens me :(

The desperate and modern need for "originality" and the subsequent hate for anything deemed a "rip off" (read: copy) is something that's been created by marketing people and sustained by lawyers. This attitude can be seen in other things besides art, which only goes to highlight how it can strangulate creativity. For example, who wants "rip off" Nike trainers? Ask a child and they'll tell you that they want the original! The real thing. People have been held up and robbed, sometimes even killed, for their trainers. Why? Who benefits from getting people to spend over-the-odds on such things and creating a desire, nay need, to own them? Not the original artists, but the copyright holders, of course.

Civilization III Conquests/Gold "Code 28 Error" FIXED

2007-03-21T22:37:00.013Z

If you found this, you're probably having the same problem I've just had, installing Civilization 3 with the Conquests update, the latest patches, and then being unable to play it because of an error message: "Error loading font. Code 28".

I've read many solutions to this problem, and the most ridiculous one, and the "official" one put forward by Atari/Infrogrammes is to delete all Lucida Sans font files from your Windows/Fonts folder! Unbelievable that this could ever be considered a "solution".

Update: This solution works with Civilization 3 GOLD, too! (Thanks to 'gravegoul' for the tip!)

The REAL solution to the Civ3 Code 28 error is this:

Go to your Civilization III folder on your harddrive (mine is 'C:\Program Files\Infogrames Interactive', for example. Yours could be 'C:\Program Files\Sid Mier's Civilization III', for example.)
Next, go into the Conquests\ folder and look for a file named LSANS.FOT (not LSANS.TTF!)
Rename the file LSANS.FOT to _LSANS.FOT (or indeed, anything you like, so long as it isn't LSANS.FOT!)
You can now play Civ 3 Conquests, on ME, XP, Vista, Windows 7, whatever!

If you're wondering what the problem was, here's an explanation: Within the LSANS.FOT file is instructions for Civilization to load the LSANS.TTF (the LucidaSans font file) from "C:\BreakAway\Civ3\Conquests\LSANS.TTF", and if the file isn't there, the game won't load. Of course, this isn't even the default path for the game, so why Breakaway games should include this file with their patch is beyond me. But they did.

By removing the LSANS.FOT file (or by simply renaming it) the game simply looks for the font file elsewhere, and finds it!

I wanted to post this on a Civ3 forum somewhere, but I couldn't find an active thread about the problem, so at least here it should be here for good. Hope it helps somebody!

BONUS!

Play Civilization 3 in widescreen/high-resolution

To play Civ III in your monitor's native resolution (so the game looks better) simply add the following line to the bottom of your Conquest.ini file:

KeepRes=1

Where do you find your conquest.ini file?
If you're on XP or running Vista/Windows 7 without UAC enabled, then you'll find it in your Civilization III folder (see above). If you're running Vista/Windows 7 with UAC enabled (which you should be, if you're using those operating systems) you'll find it in:

C:\Users\[YOUR USERNAME]\AppData\Local\VirtualStore\Program Files\Infogrames Interactive\Civilization III\Conquests

Enjoy!

Oscar reactions

2007-02-25T18:00:00.003Z

Well the most overblown, self-aggrandizing and, ultimately, meaningless, award ceremony is over for another year, and I have to say I really enjoyed this one! There was a bunch of really great nominees to choose from, even if the Academy didn't always pick the best ones.

Best film: Should have probably been Babel. The Departed (the actual winner) was not really "Best Picture" quality. Considering that the original film, Infernal Affairs, which it is so closely followed, didn't even get a Best Foreign Film nomination, just shows that this award was probably more for Martin Scorsese than Graham King (the producer who won it).

Directing: Martin Scorsese for The Departed, as predicted by everyone, took this award even though it was for a film that wasn't even his best work. Alejandro González Iñárritu did a better job with Babel, and although I haven't seen it, apparently Paul Greengrass was the one who should have won this award for United 93. Of course, this award was really an acknowledgement of the brilliant films Scorsese has made throughout his career, and that's something Greengrass couldn't really compete with.

Best male lead: Forest Whitaker took this one with no surprises. Peter O'Toole could have been awarded it for the 8 previous nominations he had, but sometimes it just goes to the best of that year. Who knows, if something had been made of O'Toole's other work, leading up to the Oscars, he could have possibly got this the same way Scorsese did.

Best female lead: Helen Mirren took this one, again, no surprises. I haven't seen her performance, but I doubt it could have been better than Judi Dench in Notes on a Scandal.

Best supporting male: Thank god that Marky bloody Mark didn't win this one. His performance wasn't even the best in The Departed, never mind the rest of the films this year. Alan Arkin took this award, which no-one seemed sure which way was going to go. I don't see why Jack Nicholson got overlooked, though, his performance in The Departed was masterful.

Best supporting female: Adriana Barraza should have got this one, easily. If it wasn't her, then it should have been Rinko Kikuchi. Instead, Jennifer Hudson got this one, although to be fair, I missed Dreamgirls. She better have been damned good to beat Barraza!

Original screenplay: Little Miss Sunshine got this one, congrats to those guys. There was no obvious winner in this category.

Screenplay from other: The Departed, got this, god knows why, especially when you consider how close it was to the completely non-Academy recognised original. Notes on a Scandal was excellent, and probably deserved to win. Haven't seen the other nominations, though.

Cinematography: Pan's Labyrinth's Guillermo Navarro took this one home, although Children of Men's Emmanuel Lubezki seem to do a stunning job.

Editing: The Departed's Thelma Schoonmaker took this one, her third Oscar. I thought that Babel's Douglas Crise and Stephen Mirrione possibly deserved it, but there's no doubting Schoonmaker's talent.

Best Foreign Film: The very popular Pan's Labyrinth surprisingly didn't get this one, instead it went to The Lives of Others, which thoroughly deserved it (definitely the best film of the year).

So in all it was Scorsese's year. Highlights included; Ellen DeGeneres, Ennio Morricone, Jerry Seinfeld (did a great bit that showed he was a little more comfortable on that big stage than DeGeneres, perhaps a contender as next year's host?), Jack Black, John C. Reilly and Will Ferrell's song, Helen Mirren's acceptance speech, but the best moment was worth waiting for: Coppolla, Speilberg and Lucas getting together to award their contemporary, Scorsese, with his Oscar.

I've probably forgotten some of the best bits, but like I said, it was a good year for Oscar overall!

The importance of plagiarism

2007-02-25T14:56:00.003Z

I've been reading Eddie Campbell's brilliant blog and not so long ago he had an interesting post on Lichtenstein, which was followed up by even more interesting post on plagiarism and its merits.

'Merits of plagiarism?', I hear you cry. That's what I said, too, but it seems that there is actually a growing belief that the current trend of severely punishing those who copy other's work is unnecessary, damaging to our culture and, indeed, that the need for absolute "originality" in art is a modern obsession.

Right now there are websites set up "exposing" so called plagiarists, and they have a lot of public support and sympathy. You Thought We Wouldn't Notice is one such site, and inside you can find lots of examples plagiarism, ranging from questionable influence to outright theft. The idea behind sites like these is to help protect an artist's ideas and intellectual rights, by "naming and shaming" those caught stealing. It sounds like a good idea, but others are beginning to argue that we are taking the idea of intellectual properly too far, and the explosion of easily copyable digital media looks like it must just push this debate to boiling point.

Roy Lichtenstein has been accused of stealing from other artists from a "lower art-form" during the creation of his famous "pop-art" paintings; taking comic book panels and blowing them up to fill a canvas. It was an action that still raises ethical questions today; Did Lichtenstein owe all his success to the uncredited authors of the original comics? Comic book artist Dave Gibbons has hinted that he is less than impressed with Lichtenstein's work, "Roy Lichtenstein's copies of the work of Irv Novick and Russ Heath are flat, uncomprehending tracings of quite sophisticated images".

Art teacher David Barsalou, has created a website that allows people to see the original comic book panels, side-by-side with their Lichtenstein appropriations. Deconstructing Lichtenstein [go look at it!] gives us a unique view into Lichtenstein's process of creation, and Barsalou is not impressed with his findings; "The critics are of one mind that [Lichtenstein] made major changes, but if you look at the work, he copied them almost verbatim. Only a few were original." Looking at the comparisons, it's difficult to argue with Barsalou or Gibbons, Lichtenstein clearly did copy, often with technical inferiority, exactly what he saw.

So does this mean that one of the most influential and revered artists in recent times was a fraud?

"Consider this tale: a cultivated man of middle age looks back on the story of an amour fou, one beginning when, travelling abroad, he takes a room as a lodger. The moment he sees the daughter of the house, he is lost. She is a pre-teen, whose charms instantly enslave him. Heedless of her age, he becomes intimate with her. In the end she dies, and the narrator—marked by her forever—remains alone. The name of the girl supplies the title of the story: Lolita.

The author of the story I've described, Heinz von Lichberg, published his tale of Lolita in 1916, forty years before Vladimir Nabokov's novel. "

Vladimir Nabokov's Lolita is considered one of the most important novels of the 20th century.

Even fans of Indiana Jones and Star Wars must be aware that both these classic pieces of pop-culture borrowed heavily from earlier works. Without Haggard's hero, Alain Quatermain from King Solomon's Mines, there would be, ultimately, no Indiana Jones, and despite George Lucas's claims, Star Wars owes more to Flash Gordon than to inspiration drawn from Joseph Campbell's The Hero with a Thousand Faces.

"If nostalgic cartoonists had never borrowed from Fritz the Cat, there would be no Ren & Stimpy Show; without the Rankin/Bass and Charlie Brown Christmas Specials, there would be no South Park; and without The Flintstones—more or less The Honeymooners in cartoon loincloths—The Simpsons would cease to exist. If those don't strike you as essential losses, then consider the remarkable series of “plagiarisms” that links Ovid's Pyramus and Thisbe with Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet and Leonard Bernstein's West Side Story, or Shakespeare's description of Cleopatra, copied nearly verbatim from Plutarch's Life of Mark Antony and also later nicked by T. S. Eliot for The Waste Land. If these are examples of plagiarism, then we want more plagiarism."

What does all this mean, then? Is plagiarism really a good thing? The above quotes are taken from Jonatham Lethem's article The Ecstasy of Influence, which cleverly constructs an excellent argument for the importance of plagiarism and ultimately the need for a change in public opinion on the subject.

For most, this is a concept that is hard to swallow, but if we return to Roy Lichtenstein again, and take another look a David Barsolou's Deconstructing Lichtenstein, we find that although copied verbatim, you have to remember that these works of art are removed from their original context; most likely an image the size of a postage stamp sandwiched between pages of trashy, teenage melodrama. Lichtenstein realised that by taking these solitary panels out of context, he could change their meaning, and that alone, they could have impact far greater than they had originally.

By taking what was seen as a "lower art-form" and forcing people to stop and look at it, it became clear that art was all around us, if we were prepared to look at it in a particular way.

If we look at Drowning Girl (1963) we can see that although, technically Lichtenstein's copy is nearly identical technically, that, in the context of a comic book story, the panel would lose all power. Taken away from its origins, shown by itself, and blown up, it evokes totally different feelings in the viewer. We see a girl drowning; an image of emotional suffocation, refusing to ask for help. It evokes feelings of a woman trapped in a male dominated world. It's a much more powerful image.

Lichtenstein took the original work, altered it (by changing its context and cropping it) and changed it into something much better, way beyond the technical limitations of the original.

Great artists don't always come up with something completely original, but rather they can take something existing and show it to us in a new way, or re-work it so it improves on the original.

The idealist, R. G. Collingwood, has some pretty far out ideas when it comes to art and ownership, but they open the doors to new ideas:

"To begin by developing a general point already made in the preceding chapter: we must get rid of the conception of artistic ownership. We try to secure a livelihood for our artists (and God knows they need it) by copyright laws protecting them against plagiarism; but the reason why our artists are in such a poor way is because of that very individualism which these laws enforce. If an artist may say nothing except what he has invented by his own sole efforts, it stands to reason he will be poor in ideas. If he could take what he wants wherever he could find it, as Euripides and Dante and Michelangelo and Shakespeare and Bach were free, his larder would always be full, and his cookery might be worth tasting.

This is a simple matter, and one in which artists can act for themselves without asking help (which I am afraid they would ask in vain) from lawyers and legislators. Let every artist make a vow, and here among artists I include all such as write or speak on scientific or learned subjects, never to prosecute or lend himself to a prosecution under the law of copyright. Let any artist who appeals to that law be cut by his friends, asked to resign from his clubs, and cold-shouldered by any society in which right-thinking artists have influence. It would not be many years before the law was a dead letter, and the strangle-hold of artistic individualism in this one respect a thing of the past.

This, however, will not be enough unless the freedom so won is used. Let all such artists as understand one another, therefore, plagiarize each other's work like men. Let each borrow his friends' best ideas, and try to improve on them. If A thinks himself a better poet than B, let him stop hinting it in the pages of an essay; let him re-write B's poems and publish his own improved version. If X is dissatisfied with Y's this-year Academy picture, let him paint one caricaturing it; not a sketch in Punch, but a full-sized picture for next year's Academy. I will not rely upon the hanging committee's sense of humour to the extent of guaranteeing that they would exhibit it; but if they did, we should get brighter Academy exhibitions. Or if he cannot improve on his friends' ideas, at least let him borrow them; it will do him good to try fitting them into works of his own, and it will be an advertisement for the creditor. An absurd suggestion? Well, I am only proposing that modern artists should treat each other as Greek dramatists or Renaissance painters or Elizabethan poets did. If any one thinks that the law of copyright has fostered better art than those barbarous times could produce, I will not try to convert them."

It's hard to imagine how this could be applied to today in a practical sense, how the public's perception of "artistic theft" could be changed, but Collingwood and Lethem are far from alone in their view that things need to change. A respected US judge, Richard A. Posner, recently published The Little Book of Plagiarism, which examines how we look at the hot-potato that is copyright ownership. From the LA Times review:

"Ever the controversialist, Posner is willing to entertain the idea that plagiarism is hardly the high crime that moralists in the media and the academy advertise it as…
...he complains about "the absurd idea that 'copying' is inherently bad" and the "growing belief that literary, artistic, and other intellectual goods are not really 'creative' unless they are 'original.' "

Or as Posner puts it in his book:

"The vagueness of the concept of plagiarism should be acknowledged and thus a gray area recognized in which creative imitation produces value that should undercut a judgment of plagiarism - indeed an imitator may produce greater value than an originator, once 'originality' is understood, as it should be if we are to understand plagiarism in properly relativistic terms, just to mean difference, not necessarily creativity. In modern commercial society, which places the stamp of personality on goods both physical and intellectual for economic reasons unrelated to high culture, a verdict of plagiarism is pronounced without regard to the quality of the plagiarized original or, for that matter, of the plagiarizing copy."

It seems that money, quite typically, is the reason for this modern change in thought; The original authors are not always the ones most upset at finding their work "plagiarised", indeed it is the publishers who will most likely sue if they feel someone has stolen parts of their intellectual property, and indeed the law encourages them to do so. For if a copyright owner is not seen to attempt to protect their intellectual property at all times, this can be held against them in court the next time they cry thief.

Posner seems to be saying that it is the law, not just public opinion, that needs to change. Accusations of plagiarism should be judged individually, taking into account the actual damage done to the original author and current copyright holder, and whether or not the alleged theft actually has any artistic merits in its own right. In short, plagiarism isn't always bad and if we don't change our perceptions soon, our high-culture will continue to suffer in ways we aren't even seeing.

The next Shakespeare may have already been persecuted and branded a thief.

What is "proper English", anyway?

2007-02-05T22:05:00.002Z

Do ever feel annoyed when you hear people complaining about the "falling standards" of spoken and written English? When someone complains that the use of colloqualisms is somehow not "correct" and, indeed, "damaging" to our culture? I do. It bugs the crap out of me.

It seems to me that these people are bound by the contents of their dictionary, when really it should the dictionary that's bound by the common usage and corruption of words.

Surely it is the dictionary's purpose to chart the progress of our ever changing language, rather than dictate to us how we should speak it? Did Samuel Johnson not spend nine years travelling England, Scotland and Wales in order to accurately gather a list of commonly used words and then explain their meaning? While he also sought to standardise variations of these words, which is of course important, I see no indication that he edited out certain phrases that he felt were not "proper English", for what is "proper English" if it is not he language spoken by people dwelling in England, Scotland and Wales?

The next time you hear someone complaining about "falling standards" of English or moaning about a certain new colloquialism, remember that language, by its very nature, is constantly changing and evolving, and it dictated by those who speak it, not those who compile it and attempt to order it.

It seems wrong and completely against the nature of language that it should be bound by the 'snapshot' that a dictionary represents. Dictionaries should follow trends and help standardise them, not limit the natural flow of language or, in the worst cases I've seen, be abused to create division for the sake of snobbery and a sense of superiority.

More BB moans

2007-02-04T20:16:00.001Z

Hopefully this will be my last BB related moan -- ever! I'm so fed up with the whole thing. There was once a brilliant discussion about racism that everyone seemed interested in joining in. People weren't afraid of saying what they thought and as a result opinions changed, ideas were conceived and outlooks expanded. Then the press got hold of it and made everything look worse than it was. It made people who had never even seen Big Brother angry, with them not thinking for a minute that they were being manipulated by a publication eager for readers.

For those who were enjoying the discussion, enjoying learning, we're now so fed up with it all that we've given up. No-one wants to talk about racism any more and in fact it's become a JOKE. A running gag. That's all this overblown media attention has done. What all these newspapers with their "crusades against racism" (they're not just trying to get you to buy their paper, honest) and overblown statements from politicians (they're not just fearful of not being "in touch", honest) have done: Made the average person, who was once interested in learning about socio-political issues, not interested any more. Great.

Those who are still interested are just angry. The newspapers have shown us how wrong and evil certain people are, so we must get angry with them and vilify them! Apparently.

Now those poor three, ignorant women have been subjected to the very thing that the so called 'moral right' were angry at them for: Bullying, disproportionate anger and being turned into a scapegoat.

Shilpa never had it this bad.

You don't think that these women might have learnt from their mistakes already, do you? You know: Seeing the media furore, their own drop in popularity and the general "tut tutting" of morally minded citizens. It just might be enough to make them think differently. After all, these are not the heads of the BNP, Combat 18 or the KKK we're talking about. But no, let's send them death threats, put bricks through their windows and make them afraid to go home. Yeah, that's how we'll teach them to love others!

Great job, you bunch of idiots.

Big Brother not 'Big Daddy'

2007-01-26T22:11:00.001Z

Agh.

Already Big Brother is suffering from the insane media generated by Jade Goody's bullying antics. Twice BB has stepped in in the most ridiculous manner possible in order to help grown adults sort out their minor disagreements. When Dirk Benedict felt annoyed at Cleo for harassing him with one of her 'zany' alter-egos, despite him telling her repeatedly that he wasn't interested, BB was obliged to offer to talk to Cleo for him... What the hell is going on? Is Big Brother now a father figure that house members can go running to for minor concerns?

"Big Daddy, Cleo wouldn't get off me when I told her to! Make her stop!" *wah!*

"Now, now, you two. Play nice!"

It's not BB's fault that the people in the house this year are completely spineless and unable to
confront each other in any way.

Celebrity Big Brother: The aftermath

2007-01-20T18:32:00.001Z

Against all my hopes, I've become addicted to Big Brother again, this time Celebrity BB. Of course, just like everyone else, I've got my 2cents on the whole racism/bullying affair with Shilpa Shetty.

I don't want to go into this too much it's something I find incredibly draining to think about. It's such a huge subject, and there more you think about it, the deeper it goes.

Should Big Brother/Channel 4 intervene in the future?

The whole show has sparked a national debate about what is racism and what isn't, and for that it's done an amazing job. I'm someone who has never considered themselves racist and on the contrary, I've always felt, rightly or wrongly, that I have a very good understanding of racism. It's hard to 'prove' that you're not racist, but I can say that I've always considered myself to be pretty socially aware.

Celebrity Big Brother, however, has made me realise that there are other forms of racism that I wasn't really aware of. 'Benevolent racism', as I've since heard it called, where people make, not deliberately hateful, but never-the-less, ignorant and offensive remarks, is something I will now be much more aware of. I think I've probably been aware that such comments were wrong, but seeing them displayed on Big Brother has shown me, and I'm sure many other people, how truly ugly and completely unacceptable it is.

Yet, despite this positive reaction to what's been going on (and I'm sure I'm not alone in experiencing them), and despite this issue being presented in a true and honest matter, people have been up in arms. Ken Livingstone, for example, accused Big Brother of 'pandering to racists' and claimed that Channel 4 should have their broadcasting license revoked. This is perhaps the strongest reaction to the series' events I've heard.

Now, I'm sure than Mr. Livingstone is glued to his TV set 24 hours a day watching the live feeds of CBB, and has in no way based his remarks on the inflammatory news reporting of the tabloid press, and I'm also absolutely certain that being suspended last year for making racist remarks has in no way made him hyper-sensitive to offending anyone, but I'm baffled how anyone could be angry with Channel 4 or Big Brother.

What happened in the BB house is truly representative of the state of the United Kingdom in 2007, and showed an ugly reality that many people have to suffer every day. Taking it off our TV sets does not change that reality and, if anything, it helps people forget that it even exists. It's almost like trying to sweep it under the carpet; "if we don't see it, it isn't there".

Channel 4 and Big Brother were right, in my opinion, not to interfere, especially when there was no evidence that the bullying of Shilpa Shetty was racially motivated, and, indeed, plenty of evidence it was just three women being bitchy and insecure. By doing this I believe that Big Brother has helped raise awareness of the problems of bullying and forced people to debate and re-think, perhaps for the first time, what they truly consider to be racism.

There seems to be some sort of bizarre way of thinking that makes people believe that what they see on TV is somehow more important than what's going on in real-life. If something undesirable is shown on TV, no matter how truthful, it must be removed in order to make the world a better place. It's almost as if people think TV is a window in their house, rather than a medium designed to entertain and sell products by any means possible.

It seems to me that the people who feel that Big Brother should punish or edit those who make comments which 'could be taken as being racist' (in Big Brother's words) are only helping increase ignorance of the problem in the first place.

Danish born Director Lars von Trier makes a very reasonable argument against the excessive political correctness of television:

"What makes me a little bit sad is that there's an American TV show in which the president of the US is black. People say, 'Oh look, that's OK, there's a black president on TV.' That's completely humiliating because that's not how it is. There's no black president. Political correctness kills discussion."

If people don't like what they see on a reality TV show, then it's time that people realised that things need to change in reality.

Jade now a scapegoat?

People who haven't watched the show properly, and from the beginning, still might feel that Shilpa's bullying by Jade and her cronies was in some way racially motivated, but in my opinion there is no evidence to support this belief. The tabloid press, as Jade has correctly pointed out, have tremendous power over people, and they're the one's who have created the image that the bullying was racially motivated, because, let's face it, it's a lot more sensational.

The truth is that if anyone had gone into that house, had an air of superiority, and behaved in exactly the same way as Shilpa Shetty, then Jade would have felt just as insecure, inferior and threatened by them. What's interesting is how it was clear to see just how the bullies were truly threatened by the person they bullied; When Shilpa refused to discuss when she lost her virginity, or when she refused to drink, or when she refused to join in when others burped and farted, that was seen as a "I'm not stooping to your level" by the bullies, when really it was just her upbringing.

To my mind it reveals something fundamentally insecure about the British personality in general. I certainly know that if I don't laugh at certain jokes in my workplace that I'll get singled out for making people insecure. British people in general, in my experience, are very insecure people.

The racism, for the most part, came from Jo O'Meara (from S-Club 7) and Danielle Lloyd (footballer's girlfriend and disgraced Miss Great Britain 2006). The pair of them, while obviously not liking Shilpa, crossed the line by bringing ignorant and offensive remarks about Shilpa's nationality into play while bitching about her. These comments were made behind Shilpa's and Jade's back.

Danielle Lloyd's comments about Shilpa Shetty include: "She wants to be white", "She's a dog", "I think she should just fuck off home" and "They eat with their hands in India, don't they - or is that China? You don't know where her hands have been."

Jo O'Meara added to Danielle's last comment: "They don't cook their food properly in India, that's why they're all so skinny [because they're sick from eating it]", referring to an incident where Shilpa had allegedly undercooked a chicken for the house.

These include some true and terrible examples of racism and ignorance, but some of the comments open up debate. For example, Danielle Lloyd's comment, "she's a dog", is a common put down and not necessarily said in relation to, or because of Shilpa's race. Even Lloyd's controversial, "I think she should just fuck off home", is open to much debate, as she could very easily been referring to Shilpa leaving the Big Brother house.

Racist or not, it does in no way excuse the rampant, childish and downright evil bullying that was occurring.

However, apart from a single momentary lapse in good taste, for which she deserves to be chastised, Jade Goody never made any comments about Shilpa's nationality to anyone, and certainly didn't bring it into a conversation when discussing reasons why she didn't like her.

Unfortunately, now Jade has been evicted, it seems as though the entire focus of racism in the Big Brother house has fallen upon her shoulders, while the real culprits, Danielle and Jo have been left, so far, unscathed and unpunished. Why? Because Jade is an easier, more recognisable target.

Jade, undoubtedly, was an ugly, evil-minded bully. But that's not racism.

I remarked that I felt ashamed to be British when I watched Jade spewing her vitriol at Shilpa at the heat of their argument, but that wasn't because she was being racist, it was because Jade's rudeness and childish aggression were all too apparent against Shilpa's calm, mature and reasonable persona.

Jade singled out Shilpa as a scapegoat for anything that went wrong, and Jo and Danielle happily went along, but when Jade was confronted about one comment she made, she sincerely seemed taken aback by what had happened (although it took a while and some prompting from BB), and actively decided to sort her problems out with Shilpa (none of which were racial, it must be said).

Afterwards she, mercifully, appeared to have truly learnt something about differences of culture. Of course, she made one single comment, and although it was wrong, and although I desperately wanted her evicted for how she had behaved, it's not fair to put all the racism down to her.

Danielle Lloyd, on the other hand, who appeared shocked after her own comments ("I wish she'd just fuck off home") were repeated back to her in an earlier episode, made practically no attempt to patch things up with Shilpa, despite her insistence that she would.

Even after it must have become clear to her how much of a stir Jade's single comment had caused with the British public, a tip-off that she didn't deserve, all she could muster was a pathetically transparent and drunken ramble about Shilpa cooking curry and using her fingers to pull out her onions for her. It was absolutely horrible.

Jo O'Meara has yet to even acknowledge she's said anything wrong.

Of course, Jade was given a big tip-off by Big Brother too, thanks to mounting pressure from the public to 'punish' her for her actions, but at least it revealed that her issues with Shilpa, the ones that she spent 30 minutes talking to her about, and which explained (but not excused) her previous actions as a bully, were not racist.

Jade may be ignorant, a bully and have been guilty of benevolent racism, and the tabloid press did nothing but fan the flames, but she should not become a scapegoat for the racist and ignorant comments made by Jo O'Meara and Danielle Lloyd.

Microsoft vs Apple: The Illusionary War

2007-01-14T14:32:00.002Z

I have a friend who is such a Mac-Faithful that someone could do a case study on him. I decided to show him my new Zune. They're not available in this country yet, and him being such a huge Apple fan, I imagined he'd be interested in seeing what has been touted as an "iPod Killer" from the company he hates the most: Microsoft.

Oddly, he literally refused to look at it. I may as well have been trying to hold dog shit under his nose: Wherever my hand went, his head would move in the other direction. It was as if he thought it was some sort of voodoo, not just a hard-drive in a plastic case designed to play music. People's reactions to the Zune in general are worth a post in themselves (it's amazing to see so many professional journalists from major publications lose objectivity so quickly), but what interests me is the idea that Microsoft and Apple are at war.

For the first time ever, Apple and Microsoft have gone head to head with a piece of consumer technology with the iPod and Zune, respectively, but judging by my Mac-Faithful friend's attitude and reaction, you'd think they'd been at war for years. Indeed on many "Cult of Mac" style websites the attitude is clear: If you like Apple, by extension it is right, nay, it is your duty, to hate Microsoft for being the stuffy, evil, mega global corporation that they are.

In reality, it serves both company's interests to keep the pretence that they are at war.

For Microsoft, the "evil" software giant, it serves two purposes. For starters, it credits them with doing more than they actually do. Apple, a computer manufacturer, develops the hardware and software for their PCs (for yes, Apple Macs are Personal Computers, too you know!), and sells them in one bundle. Microsoft, however, have nothing to do with the sale of "PCs" except for the writing of Operating System software.

Yet, it serves Microsoft's interests to perpetuate the myth that PCs and Windows go hand in hand. Sure, there's this weird thing called Linux out there, but that's not a "real" PC, no. In order to have a PC you must have Windows. The two are completely inseparable. You simply could not have one without the other. Or at least that's what Microsoft would like you to believe.

In reality, the operating system of any PC, whether it's an Apple or a Dell, is just one of many components that make up the whole. It's hard to argue that it's more important than any other component; for without a graphics card or chip, there would be no visuals; without a harddrive or some memory, instructions and files could not be saved; without a processor you couldn't, well, do anything! Even something a simplistic as removing the keyboard and mouse or monitor would render a computer completely unusable. The operating system may get all the attention, but it wouldn't be anything without something do the work "under the hood", so to speak.

But it sure makes Microsoft look good if people think that they can't have a PC without Windows. In reality, the operating system is as interchangeable as any other component, as long as it does the job you need it to do.

The second reason that the fabricated war with Apple is useful for Microsoft is this: It sure comes in handy when people accuse you of having a monopoly of something. "Of course we don't have a monopoly, just look at our vibrant competitor, Apple", says a nervous Microsoft executive to the Department of Justice (probably). "Everyone knows how we're constantly battling each other! My wife is always commenting on how lovely the computers look in Alley McBeal, for example. It's a constant worry, I tell you."

In reality, Microsoft have such a huge monopoly that most people cannot grasp the idea of having a PC with a choice of operating systems. "Sure, there's Linux, but that's just for tech-heads to play with in their spare time, like a hobby car or model railway, it's not a 'real' option", says a user (probably), but that user wouldn't be far wrong. The average person just wants to be able to go to PC World, pick up some software and run it.

For a quick example of how much of a monopoly Microsoft have, and how successfully people's perceptions of what makes a PC have been altered, just look at computer games. They're available for the PlayStation, the XBox, the Nintendo Wii and PC-CD. It used to be "DOS" or "Windows Compatible PCs", but now, there's no need to specify: A PC-CD simply means Windows. Everyone knows that PC = Windows.

Good for Microsoft, bad for healthy competition!

For Apple, their part in the imaginary war helps with their marketing. The pretend war with Microsoft makes them look like the plucky young contender trying to take on the established, but evil, champion. Like pygmies taking down a giant, monstrous elephant in the jungle, with nothing but blow-darts and pointy sticks. What could be better for any company than to pretend to go head-to-head with probably the most hated company in the world, and actually succeed in tricking people that you're putting up a good fight.

For Apple, it adds to their identity. Everyone loves the underdog, after all, especially when they're competing against a team that everyone hates. Microsoft, however, are not who they are fighting.

To be fair, Apple are at war with so-called "PCs", but that's not Microsoft. Microsoft are not different than Intel, AMD, nVidia, ATI, Corsair, Crucial, Creative, MSI, Asus, Abit, Gigabyte, Netgear, D-Link and thousands of other third-party computer component manufacturers. (Manufacturers that make parts that Apple uses to build their Macs, no less!)

If Apple have one main competitor, one truly rival computer company, it would probably be Dell or CompUSA. They both sell complete computer solutions to consumers, just like Apple.

Apple may have done a brilliant job infecting the public consciousness with the complete lie that if you're doing something creative, anything creative at all, then only a Mac will do, (in reality Photoshop works just as well on a PC as it does on a Mac), but that doesn't have anything to do with Microsoft. It's just Apple fighting for a share of the home computing market from people like Dell, PC World and CompUSA.

Although Microsoft have gotten much better over the years, and have apparently started stepping up to the plate in terms of offering something their users actually need/want, they're still incredibly bureaucratic and make stupid mistakes. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that they past ten years were a mistake. Microsoft should never have been put in their position of power, the computer manufacturers like Dell, HP, IBM, etc, should have never just licensed Windows. They should have bought it or something else and developed it themselves, each offering their own competing OS. It would have created a healthy, vibrant, competitive marketplace for consumers and would have altered how we see PC computing today.

Of course, in this day and age we demand a lot more from our operating system than we did ten years ago, and it's likely that even if Microsoft hadn't gotten their initial break that changed everything, that another company would have emerged and started targeting an operating system directly to consumers as a replacement to the one that came with their computer. I actually imagine that, in some other reality, this probably happened a few years ago and was met with headlines in computing magazines such as "New Wave of Independent OSs Pave Way for a Consumer Driven Future".

Well, maybe.

It's very hard to imagine a world in which Microsoft didn't dominate, especially since they dominated so thoroughly during computing's important formative years (when everyone was told for the first time that they needed a computer in their home).

Of course, even if this parallel world idea puts Microsoft as being ahead of their time, offering the user a powerful, all encompassing OS from the outset, it doesn't mean that there shouldn't be another option available to consumers, too.

Microsoft might not be deserving of all the attention and criticism they receive, but they do need a real competitor, not an illusionary one, like Apple.

Welcome!

2007-01-14T14:22:00.001Z

Welcome to my first ever Blog post. I'm hoping to get all my grumpy annoyances and didactic urges out into the world with this light, cheery blog. Sounds like fun, doesn't it? Let's see, shall we?