Alphabetti Spaghetti

Planescape Torment - Fully Modded!

2009-06-20T00:01:00.030Z

This is the ultimate guide to running Planescape: Torment on Windows XP, Vista, whatever, in the best possible configuration!

What follows is a complete step-by-step guide to installing, fixing and modding Planescape: Torment on modern machines. This guide will fix hundreds of bugs, add missions that the designers were not allowed to finish, tweak the game, improve graphics and allow it to run at a modern (and widescreen) resolutions.

In short: This is how Planescape: Torment SHOULD be played. All recommendations in this guide assume you are new to Planescape: Torment, so nothing will be spoiled or ruined. This guide will prepare the game for it to be experienced in the best possible way.

All of these things are possible thanks to the hard work of Planescape: Torment fans: Qwinn, scient, GhostDog and Biggs. I've also used additional help from Jake. I'm sure there are also many others who have worked hard to make your Planescape: Torment experience the best it can possibly be. Thanks a lot, guys!

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). 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 CD version!)
Note: If your copy of Planescape: Torment came on 2 discs then SKIP this step! (The patch is already pre-installed on the 2CD version, and installing again it will cause problems within the game.)

How to install (4 disc version only): 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).

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:

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 disc).
Now copy the .bif files from discs 3 and 4.

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 inthe process.

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:\cd2
CD3:=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 torment.ini file:

Path Search Nodes=32000
Maximum Frame Rate=40

Save the file in Notepad and you're all set! (Note: In Windows Vista you may need to save torment.ini onto your desktop and then copy it back to the game directory.)

Step 3a: Install Bigg's Widescreen mod (Highly recommended)
(Currently at version 2.1)
Note: You MUST complete Step 2 before attempting to install this mod!

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.

Warning: Installing this mod will invalidate your existing savegames, so be prepared to start over once it has been installed! If you're in the middle of a game, and don't want to lose your progress, you should stop now (come back when you're ready to play a new game!).

How to install: Download Bigg's Widescreen mod (ignore the name -- it doesn't matter whether you actually have a widescreen monitor or not!).

Double-click on widescreen-v2.1.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:
1280

When asked for your Y-coordinates enter:
800 (if your monitor is widescreen)
OR
1024 (if your monitor is not widescreen)
OR
720 (if you're playing on an LCD TV)

Note: Do NOT be tempted to enter a different resolution. Yes, you can do it and yes, the game can run at higher resolutions, but graphics will become distorted.

You should now have 1280x800 (if your monitor is widescreen) or 1280x1024 (if your monitor is not widescreen) or 1280x720 (if you're playing on an LCD TV). If this is correct, 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 mod (Required)
(Currently at version 1.2)
*Note: If you have installed Bigg's Widescreen mod (above), then you MUST install this mod or some of the game's graphics will be broken!

What it does: Increasing the resolution of the game will knock many special graphical effects out of place and making many menu screens look ugly. Luckily this mod fixes all the special effects, graphics and menus for higher resolutions.

How to install: This mod is a little tricky to install, but all of the following updates are installed the in the same way, so pay attention.

Before you begin you will need some software capable of opening .rar files. If you don't already have some, I recommend downloading and installing the excellent (and free) utility 7-Zip.

Once you've got some software capable of opening .rar archives you're read to download Ghostdog's mod.

Once you've downloaded it, open it with 7-zip (usually just be double-click on the file). Now extract the entire archive to the game directory (this is the directory where torment.exe resides - 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 three options:

Install the mod with the default fonts
Install the mod with 30% bigger fonts
Install the mod with 50% bigger fonts

I personally like option 1, but you may prefer running the game with slightly bigger fonts. You can see a preview of the differences here (click to see full size):
To pick an option, just type a number associated with it and press ENTER.

Note: Don't worry! As with all of the patches and 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!

Step 4: Install the Ultimate Fixpack (Highly recommended)
(Currently at version 3.02.)

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 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 3.02.)

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.

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 3.51)

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

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)
Maximized HP Per Level for TNO and Party
Maximized Friends Spell
Stackable Rings, Charms, Bracelets, Scrolls

Do NOT install:

Scale of Souls

You SHOULD install:

Save Nordom! Tweak

Do NOT install:

Tome Of Cheats
Power Action Leprechaun Annah, by Black Isle
Easter Egg Morte, by Black Isle

You SHOULD install:

Explore City Areas

Do NOT install:

Rest Anywhere
Identify All Items

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

Use Floating Text Font Globally
No Battle Music

Do NOT install:

Early Glabrezus Tweak

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

You can now play Planescape: Torment better than ever before.

One list thing: If you're playing the game on a nVidia 8 series graphics card (for example a 8800GTS) then you will also need to install the nVidia fixer. If, after installing this, characters start walking backwards, go to the ingame video options and enable "Software mirroring".

Congratulations! Lots of work, but you're done! You can relax, start-up Planescape: Torment and enjoy one of the greatest games ever made.

As a special bonus treat, you may want a higher quality icon associated with the game (especially when playing on Vista), so I've created a new game icon.

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

Red Dwarf: Back to a dearth of magic

2009-04-11T13:48:00.007Z

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

2008-11-30T16:02:00.035Z

As a follow-up to my previous post which put all the Hellboy stories in chronological order, I suddenly realised that it would be better for new readers (like me) to have a list showing a suggested reading order.

Those who have read the first three trade-paperback collections will appreciate how the published order isn't actually the order you should read the stories in.

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.

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

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 #2: Wake the Devil
1996: Wake the Devil

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
2006: 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

Please leave corrections and/or suggestions! Thanks!

Thanks to Shady on the Darkhorse forums for additional help.

The Hellboy Story Chronology

2008-11-29T19:11:00.023Z

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!

2008-09-20T17:48:00.021Z

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. 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 said.

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...

2008-07-17T21:46:00.013Z

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

2008-07-01T19:14:00.006Z

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

2007-12-30T03:14:00.000Z

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

2007-12-08T13:36:00.000Z

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 an amiable comment about the 1987 Paul Verhoven classic, and then being told "yeah, I should get it framed", 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 taste for interior design, yes, but geeks non-the-less.

The crudely hidden gaming consoles only backed up my initial reaction. Here was common ground and the promise of enjoyable conversations and sharing of mutually relished past-times. In other words, bonding material.

"So", I ventured cheerfully to the girl who was showing me around, and who's 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 sorry if you already know this, I'm sure most of you do, but it surprises me how many people, even those much older than me, haven't learned this lesson 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 why don't you understand that everything worthy ever created was created by a geek?

Well, 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.

Another difficulty is the not realising 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. 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. Those that can remain themselves in face of those who tell them they're 'uncool' have a difficult path.

It takes a lot of courage to be yourself, especially if you've got some around you telling you that you're 'wrong' (these people are usually insecure and subconsciously want to control you). 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.

These people are the 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 jump right in. Splash around. Enjoy yourself. I'll certainly salute and admire you for it, and you'll undoubtedly find yourself having a good time.

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 don an anorak and spot trains on the weekend (if that's your particular fancy)?

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, and how do you ever expect to find happiness in other people's loves?

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

Don't grab hold of life, grab hold of yourself and don't let go. It's the only thing you've got.

Thoughts on... Guitar Hero 3

2007-11-25T11:20:00.000Z

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

2007-10-23T21:15:00.000Z

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...

2007-10-21T18:29:00.000Z

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.)

2007-10-10T20:15:00.000Z

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 velour all-in-one outfits. You're completely out of your depth, but also very polite. Think about wearing Spock ears and then badly "hiding" them under a silly sweat band. 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.

- Nervously greet people (as if you don't know how they're going to react) and refer to things that don't exist yet, for example: "Where's the nearest matter transporter?" or "But why don't you just hologrid your inner fusion core? You guys have bi-dimensional technology by now, right?" or "Could you take me to your President, I have something very important to tell him... or her. Which one is it?"

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 AI spin unit... (nervous over-the-top laughter)." Then walk away, keeping side-ways eye contact, and 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), who's blog I found this on!

It's the new Talk Like A Pirate Day!

Retro review: Red Dwarf - The individual novels

2007-10-06T13:34:00.001Z

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 two spelling errors that even made their way into the final chapters of paperback edition - how the one on the final page got through, I’ll never know).

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, probably too excited by a new Red Dwarf novel, or I was possibly too young to pick up on it), but this time it was clear to me that it 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 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, but it's no surprise, as he generally works better as a character when he's at his most antagonistic, and it feels 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 can’t take it any more… It’s funny, don’t misunderstand me, there’s some brilliant lines, but it just feels wrong. Like a car engine in dire need of a mechanic, it somehow keeps on moving, but it really doesn’t sound right and you feel like you shouldn't be driving it.

For starters, Naylor clearly has no issues with messing with the entire Red Dwarf canon. Rimmer's inferiority complex about his more successful brothers all stem around the fact he didn't get a memory implant when he was a boy?? Grant explored this neuroses and turned it into the core of his entire book and something emotionally satisfying we could all relate to, but Doug quickly explains it away in an unemotional and illogical sentence.

There’s also an astonishing 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. 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"?) or the fact that Starbug has a “Hubble telescope” installed (come on) are just horrible.

I guess Doug would argue that it’s all about entertaining readers, and most people aren't going to know scientific theory and don't care about technology (so long as it sounds ok), they just want a laugh.

While I can definitely say the 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, will we ever see you again?

Tarantino Death Proof Q&A: Pt 3

2007-09-29T15:55:00.000Z

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!

Parts one and two are there and might be worth reading. As usual, there's probably spoilers below. Enjoy!

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 is just the little bits of recollections I've got left over, I apologise in advance for its 'bittiness'.

All that's really left for me to say is 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 session, 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, was careful not to not step on his toes. While I would have been more than happy to hear 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 a little bit shocking.

Firstly, 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. It was 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 a cinema experience that he then gets to see other people experience. (I got a real sense of the satisfaction he must feel, staring out at the faces of people still buzzing from just watching his latest creation.)

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 an element missing from the experience for him.

He mentioned discussing this 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.

Of course, he made it clear that that has now all 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 overall he said the experience was enough to put him off wanting to adapt anything else in the future.

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. See why I left these bits to last?)

When asked what he thought of Rob Zombie's new Halloween film. I was pleasantly surprised at how candid he was, "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 candid about his general dissatisfaction working with Directors of Photography in general. Death Proof is the first film which Tarantino shot himself, without a DOP, and he seemed to appreciate the freedom is gave him. Also, he joked, "it was a good film 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 DOPs, and how all they bring their own staff with them (which they do), who then, wanting to keep their working relationship with the DOP in question, work for the DOP 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 the most), which is also told on the Death Proof DVD, 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. I'd just like to thank my girlfriend for getting us both tickets to the event (somehow miraculously stumbling across them just as they went on sale!).

As an aside, my girlfriend, after listening to the Q&A, came up with a really interesting psychological profile (or sorts) for Stuntman Mike. She said that basically he was 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 hope you've enjoyed these three weeks of Death Proof madness! If I recall anything else, I'll post it as I remember. Thanks again to all those who have taken the time to tell me they enjoyed these little write ups. Cheerio!

Tarantino Death Proof Q&A: Pt 2

2007-09-15T15:22:00.000Z

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.

Spoilers below!

At the moment, wherever I look when I go to read about Death Proof, there seems to be someone complaining that they're being forced to 'double dip' on DVD and that the only reason they're not seeing Grindhouse is because it flopped in US cinemas. Now while this latter statement is true if you're in the UK or Australia and waiting for the cinema release, it's definitely not true about the DVD release, nor is anyone being forced to 'double dip'. (Remember the rumours about the six different versions of Kill Bill to be released in a year? We're still waiting...)

Death Proof 'Extended' (a confusing term) is actually just Death Proof. You see, as Tarantino put it, he made Death Proof, Rodriguez made Planet Terror and together they made Grindhouse. Three separate entities.

Tarantino explained how the only reason he could cut his film down to 90 minutes for use in Grindhouse was 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 was never set for a worldwide release) and the one that was going to be released everywhere on DVD. He also added that while he was editing for Grindhouse he had to make sure that he was serving the experience of Grindhouse. Otherwise, he said, he simply would not have been able to lose the scenes he did.

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. The rest of the world, believe it or not, we're not that interested in Grindhouse and so Death Proof and Planet Terror is what was sold to them.

Tarantino is proud of the film he's made and cares about it. 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 Weinstein's, that he said 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, Tarantino and Rodriguez are very happy with Grindhouse and they don't want to see it die. 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 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 how Rodriguez's had already responded:

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

I've said it before, and I'll say it again, Death Proof is Death Proof. Grindhouse is Grindhouse. Don't listen to the people who try to convince you otherwise.

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.

They're rude, uncompromising, misinformed and completely unable to talk in a manner that's usually found in civilized society. They are London's lost people. Usually in their mid to late thirties, they're the smartly dressed, grown-up equivalent to chavs (London doesn't actually have chavs) and you won't be able to spot one until you're standing at a bar and the person next to you starts aggressively telling the innocent bartender that the film he's just seen was actually very good.

It doesn't matter that this blight on society 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 it wasn't as good as the book, but that it was still quite good. But apparently the 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'll probably be 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 remind them 'oh, don't worry, it's only a film'?".

Confusion and shock to this obviously aggressive question (I've probably done it no justice, you'll have to believe me). 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 Q&A: Pt 1

2007-09-15T12:59:00.000Z

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.

Firstly I have to say how pleased I was that Tarantino came across as a smart, intelligent guy. There are times when he's waffling on during some interview or whatever, and I wonder if he really knows what he's talking about or he's just talking fast enough and long enough that he hopes no-one will care, or notice that he doesn't. Thankfully this wasn't the case, and as the Q&A session progressed, he seemed to get more and more comfortable, coherent and insightful.

I learnt many things about Death Proof, and I have to say his comments changed my mind about the film, which had been ambivalent 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 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 going "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, 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, but it uses these low expectations of the audience to its advantage.

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

2007-09-14T20:40:00.000Z

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...

2007-08-04T08:39:00.000Z

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

2007-07-17T10:22:00.000Z

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

2007-07-01T18:45:00.000Z

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!

2007-06-05T23:00:00.000Z

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.