Anger management therapists should begin purchasing Wiis and copies of PlatinumGames MadWorld. It's a perfectly safe way to work out any aggression you might have. It's a game that gives you more points for more grotesque and contrived executions. It's stylish, and keeps its tongue firmly planted in its cheek, in case anyone had any ideas about taking it seriously. In short, it's right up my alley.
MadWorld is, as I've covered, the first release from PlatinumGames. In it, you play as Jack (just Jack), a new contestant on "DeathWatch" (what's with this developer and not knowing where the space bar is?) an Escape from New York-cum-Running Man style gameshow. The producers of "DeathWatch" have eliminated all paths in and out of the fictional Varrigan City, and are now running a gameshow which sees killing as the main objective for rich sadists the world over.
The plot is slightly more than window dressing, as it does go above and beyond the typical action game story. It involves more than a few twists, and can be credited to Yasumi Matsuno, who previously penned the much vaunted Vagrant Story for the original Playstation. Ultimately, though, the action takes center stage, and you can skip all the story sequences and get straight to the killing without feeling like you're missing much.
I can't say I recommend that, though. The game's script and voice acting are very well done. The cut scenes are very stylish, and made to look like a (Frank Miller) comic book. Steven Jay Blum of "Cowboy Bebop" fame provides the voice for Jack, and does a superb job. The rest of the cast is very nearly as good. Greg Proops ("Whose Line is it Anyway?") and John DiMaggio ("Futurama") provide side-splitting commentary, and though I've heard complaints of sports game-esque repetition, I only encountered it a few times (mostly during boss fights and Bloodbath Challenges). Danny "Bobby Budnick" Cooksey ("Salute Your Shorts," T2) even lends his voice to a young doctor Jack saves early on.
Now, the killing. As I said, the scoring system rewards you for the more creative kills. Many modern games have eshewed scoring, but MadWorld puts it to great use. Each level is like a mini-sandbox. You're dropped in, and you have access to all of the areas right away. This is where scoring comes in. The higher the score you get, the more deathtraps start up and items become available, with which you can unleash additional mayhem. Once your score gets high enough, bonus games called Bloodbath Challenges and eventually the boss fight for that area become available.
And the boss fights do not disappoint. Both the mini and main bosses for each area are creative and unique. They have unique patterns and unique methods for the quickest dispatch. Of course, each bossfight ends with a spectacular death scene, which uses the Wiimote to immerse you in the killing.
With that in mind, the game does avoid too much waggle, and stupid quicktime events. There are times that something similar to a QTE appears, but the motions always make sense (slash to lock chainsaws with a mini-boss) and aren't just an arbitrary combination of buttons, a la God of War. Waggle is only used for high power attacks and finishing moves, so your arm won't get too tired during combat.
Overall, this game is easily one of the five best Wii games available. For M-Rated fare, it's second only to Goichi Suda's amazing No More Heroes. Run, don't walk to a copy of this game. Especially if you have anger management issues.
Tuesday, March 17, 2009
Friday, March 13, 2009
Top Five Friday: Top Five Game Series That Need a Rest
So, in all forms of media there are those series that should just stop. They've been flagellated to the point that they're barely recognizeable when compared to their early iterations. There's Saw in the movies, spinoffs of Flava of Love in TV (or even spinoffs of its spinoffs) and, well, these five videogames. Presented in order of most dead horses beaten. (Note: Tab of "dead horses beaten" does not include phone games, or rereleases of previous versions for new tech)
Guitar Hero (8 games, debuted 2005): Harmonix was already milking the "yearly update plus spinoffs" bit when Red Octane took their ball to Activision, but Activision diddled this franchise to a whole new level. It's at the beginning of the list because it has the least iterations, but it's also by far the youngest series. Not even 4 full years out of the chute, and there're already 8 games in the series, 4 of which came out last year! And this year, Activision has plans for at least 4 more, with the first being the Metallica version coming at the end of this month.
Final Fantasy (39-ish games, debuted 1987 (in Japan), 1990 (in the US)): I'm all for the numbered entries in the series. They come at a rate of about 3 per generation (and there hasn't even been one yet this generation), and that's hunky dory by me. The spinoffs, pseudo-sequels, snowboarding games and remakes (My god the remakes!) are what drives me nuts. See, that's why the series has "39-ish" games. That doesn't include all the quick cash-in cell phone games or the remakes. So, that would take the total to something I'd need Doc Brown to calculate for me. I'm guessing a google-plex-ish.
I mean, I understand that the first game saved Square. That's fine, it's your cash cow. That doesn't excuse barely letting two months go by without releasing Final Fantasy: Some Guy with Bad Hair and Non-functioning Zippers on His Clothes Whines and Fights the Ultimate Evil Part XVI: Sometime Near the Crisis. Give it a rest, guys. Seriously.
Sonic (48 games, debuted 1991): Really, Sega? Haven't you figured it out yet? Every new "Sonic & his furry friends do stuff that isn't just running really fast and twitch platforming" game just takes more and more away from the legacy of a series that used to be competition to Mario. Give the poor blue woodland creature a break for a couple of years while you come up with something new for him to do. (PROTIP: Start with running really fast and twitch platforming.)
Mega Man (70 games, debuted 1987): Ok, I love the Blue Bomber as much as anyone, and I have the tattoo to prove it, but Mega Man is Capcom's most prolific star (and that's saying something!) and maybe 35 of those 70 games is worth playing. Now, last year's Mega Man 9 was, in a word, amazing, but that doesn't justify three versions of the mediocre Mega Man: Star Force, which was, itself, continuing the mediocre and over-exposed Battle Network series. One 2D Mega Man game every other year would be a wonderland, because I'm sure Capcom and series auteur Keiji Inafune would take the time and care to make it really, really good.
Sports games (NBA 2K, NBA Live, Tiger Woods, Madden, MLB The Show, MLB 2K, WWE Smackdown, etc.) (Too damn many, annual releases began in the 16-bit era): This has been a thorn in the side of many (gullible) gamers, myself included, since the 16-bit days, but, hey, everyone wanted to play with an updated roster. But even in the 16-bit days, we still usually got some gameplay innovation at the same time. Now, you basically pay sixty bucks for a roster update.
With DLC and every system on the market being hooked up to the intertubes, there's no excuse for this. Take some time EA/2K/THQ and make an innovative game. Use DLC and make me pay five bucks to update the roster once a year.
Guitar Hero (8 games, debuted 2005): Harmonix was already milking the "yearly update plus spinoffs" bit when Red Octane took their ball to Activision, but Activision diddled this franchise to a whole new level. It's at the beginning of the list because it has the least iterations, but it's also by far the youngest series. Not even 4 full years out of the chute, and there're already 8 games in the series, 4 of which came out last year! And this year, Activision has plans for at least 4 more, with the first being the Metallica version coming at the end of this month.
Final Fantasy (39-ish games, debuted 1987 (in Japan), 1990 (in the US)): I'm all for the numbered entries in the series. They come at a rate of about 3 per generation (and there hasn't even been one yet this generation), and that's hunky dory by me. The spinoffs, pseudo-sequels, snowboarding games and remakes (My god the remakes!) are what drives me nuts. See, that's why the series has "39-ish" games. That doesn't include all the quick cash-in cell phone games or the remakes. So, that would take the total to something I'd need Doc Brown to calculate for me. I'm guessing a google-plex-ish.
I mean, I understand that the first game saved Square. That's fine, it's your cash cow. That doesn't excuse barely letting two months go by without releasing Final Fantasy: Some Guy with Bad Hair and Non-functioning Zippers on His Clothes Whines and Fights the Ultimate Evil Part XVI: Sometime Near the Crisis. Give it a rest, guys. Seriously.
Sonic (48 games, debuted 1991): Really, Sega? Haven't you figured it out yet? Every new "Sonic & his furry friends do stuff that isn't just running really fast and twitch platforming" game just takes more and more away from the legacy of a series that used to be competition to Mario. Give the poor blue woodland creature a break for a couple of years while you come up with something new for him to do. (PROTIP: Start with running really fast and twitch platforming.)
Mega Man (70 games, debuted 1987): Ok, I love the Blue Bomber as much as anyone, and I have the tattoo to prove it, but Mega Man is Capcom's most prolific star (and that's saying something!) and maybe 35 of those 70 games is worth playing. Now, last year's Mega Man 9 was, in a word, amazing, but that doesn't justify three versions of the mediocre Mega Man: Star Force, which was, itself, continuing the mediocre and over-exposed Battle Network series. One 2D Mega Man game every other year would be a wonderland, because I'm sure Capcom and series auteur Keiji Inafune would take the time and care to make it really, really good.
Sports games (NBA 2K, NBA Live, Tiger Woods, Madden, MLB The Show, MLB 2K, WWE Smackdown, etc.) (Too damn many, annual releases began in the 16-bit era): This has been a thorn in the side of many (gullible) gamers, myself included, since the 16-bit days, but, hey, everyone wanted to play with an updated roster. But even in the 16-bit days, we still usually got some gameplay innovation at the same time. Now, you basically pay sixty bucks for a roster update.
With DLC and every system on the market being hooked up to the intertubes, there's no excuse for this. Take some time EA/2K/THQ and make an innovative game. Use DLC and make me pay five bucks to update the roster once a year.
PlatinumGames
I wrote this blog with pen and paper at work Wednesday afternoon, but was too busy playing (surprise!) MadWorld Wednesday night to post it. Then I went to the midnight release of RE5 last night, so... Yeah. But this post was written before I had played MadWorld.
Today marks the US release of PlatinumGames first release, MadWorld for the Nintendo Wii. It is imparative that MadWorld do well. Now, just to clarify "do well" does not mean "sell as many copies as Halo 3." No, "do well" means something more like "garner critical acclaim and sell a couple hundred thousand copies."
You see, there's alot riding on MadWorld. As the first release by Capcom expatriates PlatinumGames, it will set the bar for their future releases. It's also being published by Sega, and that gives them a chance to change their image in the eyes of many gamers.
Sega's decision at the beginning of the decade to cease hardware production and development and instead focus on developing software on all platforms came as a pleasant surprise to many, myself included. Now, I love my Dreamcast, and I was a diehard Genesis fanboy in my playground days (despite owning both a Genesis and a SNES), but let's face it; the DC wasn't exactly living up to expectations on the business end of things. The Saturn before it could best be described as an abject failure everywhere but Japan. Sega was far from their most profitable days.
So, they decided to publish games for every console. This was great news! We'd see Sonic, Virtua Fighter and all the great innovation we'd come to expect from Sega no matter what machine we owned! Well... two out of three ain't bad. We saw Sonic and Virtua Fighter and Sonic and Sonic and... oh, yeah there was that Sonic game. Sega's basically become a sequel factory, and even their few interesting less pimped out franchises have become mediocritized (see: Samba de Amigo on Wii).
Recently (to cope with the continual failures of Sonic Team, no doubt), Sega's began publishing for smaller developers, like PlatinumGames, with whom they inked a multi-game, multi-platform publishing deal. Platinum, and the other developers Sega's partnered with, could help turn the reputation of the House That Sonic Built around. You see, the average gamer (especially the average Wii gamer) doesn't know or care who PlatinumGames is. They just see that big blue SEGA logo on the box and know it's a Sega game.
The aformentioned "big blue SEGA"
As for Platinum, they're comprised of mostly ex-Clover Studios employees. In the minds of many hardcore gamers, that's some pedigree, but the truth is, their games got mixed reviews. (No matter how much I love GodHand, not everyone did.) Hopefully, MadWorld will start a trend of critical acclaim, so that gamers who do look beyond the big blue SEGA will know a game with the Platinum logo is one to check out.
Look for a MadWorld review coming soon!
Monday, March 9, 2009
"Never compromise... even in the face of armageddon."
So, I went out with 11 of my closest friends and family members to see Watchmen on Friday night, and... almost everyone I went with hated it. They were disappointed and/or bored. This came as quite a shock to me, because I liked it as much as I think I could like it, given that it's based on one of the best graphic novels ever.
In short, the film is as good as an adaptation of a 12 issue, self-contained, extremely dense comic could possibly be, which makes it... a slightly better than average movie. No offense to any parties involved. I mean, David "Solid Snake" Hayter, Alex Tse and fellow Wisconsinite Zack Snyder all did the best they possibly could, but it's just not a story that works well as a movie.
Which brings me back to the people I saw it with. Of the people who did enjoy it, all but one of us had read the comic. This means that all but one of us knew what to expect. The rest? They'd all gotten it into their heads that they were going to see an action movie. To quote Rorschach, "Hurm..." An action movie? Where ever did they get that idea? Watchmen is, in many ways, the anti-action comic. It relies heavily on mood, pacing and dialogue. The movie is the same, in that respect. Well, apparently, no one told the guy who edited together all the trailers, because every trailer makes this movie look like the second coming of The Wild Bunch, except with people in costumes.
It is not that. Not even a little. But people think it is, because this movie is being market all wrong, and it's going to leave a lot of people who haven't read the book feeling deceived (which they should, because they were). From what I hear, it seems like perhaps that's what the studio wanted the movie to be (rumors of requests for edits are abound), but being true to the geeks, Snyder doesn't compromise, and stays true (as true as possible) to the source material.
Which, as I've said, is part of the problem in another way. Quite frankly, in the end you're just better off reading the book. It was conceived in that medium, it's amongst the finest examples of that medium, and you can always turn back quickly if you feel like you missed something. Of course, if you do read the book first, then you'll have all kinds of minor things to gripe about when you do see the film, but really, they're just nitpicks. In order to keep the movie watchable, it hits all the major events and plot points and gets you out of the theatre in less than three hours.
The last thing I want to say is that many of the performances leave a little something to be desired, but one performance is worth the entire price of admission. Jackie Earle Haley is, in a word, phenomenal as Rorschach. He is perfect in the role, and his performance has stuck with me since the viewing. Rorschach is by far my favorite character, and I wasn't sure if one of the Bad News Bears was going to be able to do the role justice. I'm glad to say, I was very, very wrong.
In short, the film is as good as an adaptation of a 12 issue, self-contained, extremely dense comic could possibly be, which makes it... a slightly better than average movie. No offense to any parties involved. I mean, David "Solid Snake" Hayter, Alex Tse and fellow Wisconsinite Zack Snyder all did the best they possibly could, but it's just not a story that works well as a movie.
Which brings me back to the people I saw it with. Of the people who did enjoy it, all but one of us had read the comic. This means that all but one of us knew what to expect. The rest? They'd all gotten it into their heads that they were going to see an action movie. To quote Rorschach, "Hurm..." An action movie? Where ever did they get that idea? Watchmen is, in many ways, the anti-action comic. It relies heavily on mood, pacing and dialogue. The movie is the same, in that respect. Well, apparently, no one told the guy who edited together all the trailers, because every trailer makes this movie look like the second coming of The Wild Bunch, except with people in costumes.
It is not that. Not even a little. But people think it is, because this movie is being market all wrong, and it's going to leave a lot of people who haven't read the book feeling deceived (which they should, because they were). From what I hear, it seems like perhaps that's what the studio wanted the movie to be (rumors of requests for edits are abound), but being true to the geeks, Snyder doesn't compromise, and stays true (as true as possible) to the source material.
Which, as I've said, is part of the problem in another way. Quite frankly, in the end you're just better off reading the book. It was conceived in that medium, it's amongst the finest examples of that medium, and you can always turn back quickly if you feel like you missed something. Of course, if you do read the book first, then you'll have all kinds of minor things to gripe about when you do see the film, but really, they're just nitpicks. In order to keep the movie watchable, it hits all the major events and plot points and gets you out of the theatre in less than three hours.
The last thing I want to say is that many of the performances leave a little something to be desired, but one performance is worth the entire price of admission. Jackie Earle Haley is, in a word, phenomenal as Rorschach. He is perfect in the role, and his performance has stuck with me since the viewing. Rorschach is by far my favorite character, and I wasn't sure if one of the Bad News Bears was going to be able to do the role justice. I'm glad to say, I was very, very wrong.
Friday, March 6, 2009
Top Five Friday: Top Five Live Action Comic Book Movies
In this first edition of Top Five Friday, I bring you the Top Five Comic Book Movies. Since I'm going to see Watchmen tonight, it seems appropriate. As I still haven't actually seen Watchmen, it is, obviously, excluded from the list.
Top Five Live Action Comic Book Movies (in chronological order)
-Batman (based on the DC comic book created by Bob Kane, directed by Tim Burton, 1989) Look, I'll just say it here and now, Tim Burton's Batman is my favorite comic book movie of all time. It gets the top spot today, because it was released before the rest, but the casting is perfect (I still say Michael Keaton's eccentric Bruce Wayne is way better than Christian Bale's), the sets are brilliantly surreal, and Prince is awesome.
This was also the first serious comic book movie. Before this, the '60s Batman movie and series were pretty much the template for how comics were treated by the film industry. Batman made the studios realize that if the material was treated in a mature fashion, people would respond.
-The Crow (based on the Kitchen Sink Press comic book created by J. O'Barr, directed by Alex Proyas, 1994) If Batman made studios realize that people would respond to comic movies maturely, The Crow galvanized that realization. Based on J. O'Barr's indie comic phenomenon, The Crow tells the story of a murdered man come back to life to reap vengence on those who killed him and his wife-to-be. Brandon Lee's swansong (he died in a freak accident during shooting) was also director Alex Proyas' American film debut, and it served to boost the visibility of both men greatly.
Lee makes the movie, naturally, but supporting performances by Jon Polito (Gideon), David Patrick Kelly (T-Bird), Michael Wincott (Top Dollar) and kept it going. A live performance by My Life with the Thrill Kill Kult during the film's best action sequence doesn't hurt, either.
-X2: X-Men United (based on the Marvel comic book created by Stan Lee & Jack Kirby, directed by Bryan Singer, 2003) X-Men was my favorite comic growing up, so I was chomping at the bit for a movie to come. It eventually did, but after I'd finished growing up. Still, Bryan Singer's X-Men was incredible, but still, left me wanting just a bit. X2 took care of that. The addition of Nightcrawler, Wolverine going berzerker and the removal of Tyler Mane's awful Sabertooth all made the second film worlds ahead of the first.
-Sin City (based on the Dark Horse comic created by Frank Miller, directed by Robert Rodriguez, Frank Miller & Quentin Tarantino, 2005) Sin City was the first live action comic book movie to actually look like a comic book. The style of the film never strays from the comic, so much so that it's rumored that when Rodriguez sent scripts to the actors, they received instead copies of the graphic novels. An all-star cast (Bruce Willis, Benecio Del Toro, Elijah Wood, Mickey Rourke, Clive Owen, etc., etc.) and expert direction not only from Rodriguez, but co-director Frank Miller and "guest" director Quentin Taratino make this movie more than just nice to look at.
-The Dark Knight (based on the DC comic book created by Bob Kane, directed by Christopher Nolan, 2008) If you're reading this, and you haven't seen The Dark Knight, there's not much I can say to you that hasn't already been said. It is a great film by any standard. Heath Ledger won a posthumous Oscar for his portrayal of the Joker, making him the first actor in a comic book movie to achieve that feat, to my knowledge. Nolan is a master storyteller, and Bale is a more than capable Batman (except that voice thing... maybe he just needs a lozenge?) and Bruce Wayne. My mom even liked it.
Top Five Live Action Comic Book Movies (in chronological order)
-Batman (based on the DC comic book created by Bob Kane, directed by Tim Burton, 1989) Look, I'll just say it here and now, Tim Burton's Batman is my favorite comic book movie of all time. It gets the top spot today, because it was released before the rest, but the casting is perfect (I still say Michael Keaton's eccentric Bruce Wayne is way better than Christian Bale's), the sets are brilliantly surreal, and Prince is awesome.
This was also the first serious comic book movie. Before this, the '60s Batman movie and series were pretty much the template for how comics were treated by the film industry. Batman made the studios realize that if the material was treated in a mature fashion, people would respond.
-The Crow (based on the Kitchen Sink Press comic book created by J. O'Barr, directed by Alex Proyas, 1994) If Batman made studios realize that people would respond to comic movies maturely, The Crow galvanized that realization. Based on J. O'Barr's indie comic phenomenon, The Crow tells the story of a murdered man come back to life to reap vengence on those who killed him and his wife-to-be. Brandon Lee's swansong (he died in a freak accident during shooting) was also director Alex Proyas' American film debut, and it served to boost the visibility of both men greatly.
Lee makes the movie, naturally, but supporting performances by Jon Polito (Gideon), David Patrick Kelly (T-Bird), Michael Wincott (Top Dollar) and kept it going. A live performance by My Life with the Thrill Kill Kult during the film's best action sequence doesn't hurt, either.
-X2: X-Men United (based on the Marvel comic book created by Stan Lee & Jack Kirby, directed by Bryan Singer, 2003) X-Men was my favorite comic growing up, so I was chomping at the bit for a movie to come. It eventually did, but after I'd finished growing up. Still, Bryan Singer's X-Men was incredible, but still, left me wanting just a bit. X2 took care of that. The addition of Nightcrawler, Wolverine going berzerker and the removal of Tyler Mane's awful Sabertooth all made the second film worlds ahead of the first.
-Sin City (based on the Dark Horse comic created by Frank Miller, directed by Robert Rodriguez, Frank Miller & Quentin Tarantino, 2005) Sin City was the first live action comic book movie to actually look like a comic book. The style of the film never strays from the comic, so much so that it's rumored that when Rodriguez sent scripts to the actors, they received instead copies of the graphic novels. An all-star cast (Bruce Willis, Benecio Del Toro, Elijah Wood, Mickey Rourke, Clive Owen, etc., etc.) and expert direction not only from Rodriguez, but co-director Frank Miller and "guest" director Quentin Taratino make this movie more than just nice to look at.
-The Dark Knight (based on the DC comic book created by Bob Kane, directed by Christopher Nolan, 2008) If you're reading this, and you haven't seen The Dark Knight, there's not much I can say to you that hasn't already been said. It is a great film by any standard. Heath Ledger won a posthumous Oscar for his portrayal of the Joker, making him the first actor in a comic book movie to achieve that feat, to my knowledge. Nolan is a master storyteller, and Bale is a more than capable Batman (except that voice thing... maybe he just needs a lozenge?) and Bruce Wayne. My mom even liked it.
Wednesday, March 4, 2009
CGI and Movies
Look, I'm just gonna lay it all out right here and right now. I hate CGI special effects. Don't get me wrong, much like the professional wrestling promo and the videogame cutscene, they do have their place, but their place is small, and shouldn't supplant traditional special effects.
Why? Because they just aren't good enough yet. They simply are not convincing. It's very rare that CGI manages to fool anyone, let alone a savvy moviegoer. CGI looks too clean, to artificial, too much like a videogame.
I'm sure you're wondering what, exactly, spawned this dose of vitriol directed at recent film special effects. Well, I'll tell you; there're two things. One, I watched a very interesting one hour documentary called "Fantastic Flesh: The Art of Make-Up EFX" via my XBox and Netflix. It was very facinating, featuring interviews with Dick Smith, Tom Savini, Quintin Taratino, Robert Rodriguez, Greg Nicotero and a host of other make-up artists and filmmakers. I recommend it to anyone with an interest in filmmaking, particularly horror filmmaking (though other genres are discussed).
The other thing is a recent re-watching of Blade Runner (the workprint version, if you're curious). Blade Runner is one of my favorite movies of all time, based on one of my favorite books by one of my favorite authors. In fact, I owe Blade Runner and Total Recall a special debt, as they're the reasons I got into Philip K. Dick in the first place (tragically, young moviegoers today will probably be driven away from his work thanks to crap like Next and Paycheck). Now, if you watch Blade Runner today, any of the five versions of it, it looks more convincing than anything released lately.
The work of the entire effects team (whose names you can read here, if you like) continues to be lauded to this day, and rightfully so. The film creates a cohesive reality of the future of Los Angeles, a solid and believable backdrop for the film. No, not a backdrop. More than that. The aesthetic created in Blade Runner continues to inspire filmmakers to this day, the settings are so tangible and so convincing that they could be considered a character unto themselves. Shot of the Los Angeles skyline that opens the film still inspires the awe in me it did when I first saw the film something like 15 years ago, as a pre-teen geek.
The worlds of the 2nd Star Wars trilogy, or the Lord of the Rings films have a strange, glossy look to them. They look fake. The feeling they resonate is similar to the feeling you have looking at the old painted backdrops of films from the first half of the 20th century. They make you realize that this is supposed to take place in a certain setting, but you realize it on an intellectual level. "Oh, this is supposed to be Middle Earth. Ok." Blade Runner creates a setting that you believe on an instinctual level. "This is Los Angeles in the future."
Why is that? Simple. Because all of the set pieces are actually there. They're miniatures and composite shots, sure, but they are things that actually exist. They weren't generated by a computer.
Now, I understand why computers are used, they're much cheaper, require fewer people (which means fewer salaries, which means, well, cheaper) and are faster. And I realize that CGI is going to be the way it's done for the most part from here on out, but nothing would do my heart better than to hear of a big budget, effects laden film that planned on going old school on all the effects. Of course, it all means nothing if the story is crap, but all other things being equal, I prefer the old methods.
Why? Because they just aren't good enough yet. They simply are not convincing. It's very rare that CGI manages to fool anyone, let alone a savvy moviegoer. CGI looks too clean, to artificial, too much like a videogame.
I'm sure you're wondering what, exactly, spawned this dose of vitriol directed at recent film special effects. Well, I'll tell you; there're two things. One, I watched a very interesting one hour documentary called "Fantastic Flesh: The Art of Make-Up EFX" via my XBox and Netflix. It was very facinating, featuring interviews with Dick Smith, Tom Savini, Quintin Taratino, Robert Rodriguez, Greg Nicotero and a host of other make-up artists and filmmakers. I recommend it to anyone with an interest in filmmaking, particularly horror filmmaking (though other genres are discussed).
The other thing is a recent re-watching of Blade Runner (the workprint version, if you're curious). Blade Runner is one of my favorite movies of all time, based on one of my favorite books by one of my favorite authors. In fact, I owe Blade Runner and Total Recall a special debt, as they're the reasons I got into Philip K. Dick in the first place (tragically, young moviegoers today will probably be driven away from his work thanks to crap like Next and Paycheck). Now, if you watch Blade Runner today, any of the five versions of it, it looks more convincing than anything released lately.
The work of the entire effects team (whose names you can read here, if you like) continues to be lauded to this day, and rightfully so. The film creates a cohesive reality of the future of Los Angeles, a solid and believable backdrop for the film. No, not a backdrop. More than that. The aesthetic created in Blade Runner continues to inspire filmmakers to this day, the settings are so tangible and so convincing that they could be considered a character unto themselves. Shot of the Los Angeles skyline that opens the film still inspires the awe in me it did when I first saw the film something like 15 years ago, as a pre-teen geek.
The worlds of the 2nd Star Wars trilogy, or the Lord of the Rings films have a strange, glossy look to them. They look fake. The feeling they resonate is similar to the feeling you have looking at the old painted backdrops of films from the first half of the 20th century. They make you realize that this is supposed to take place in a certain setting, but you realize it on an intellectual level. "Oh, this is supposed to be Middle Earth. Ok." Blade Runner creates a setting that you believe on an instinctual level. "This is Los Angeles in the future."
Why is that? Simple. Because all of the set pieces are actually there. They're miniatures and composite shots, sure, but they are things that actually exist. They weren't generated by a computer.
Now, I understand why computers are used, they're much cheaper, require fewer people (which means fewer salaries, which means, well, cheaper) and are faster. And I realize that CGI is going to be the way it's done for the most part from here on out, but nothing would do my heart better than to hear of a big budget, effects laden film that planned on going old school on all the effects. Of course, it all means nothing if the story is crap, but all other things being equal, I prefer the old methods.
Monday, March 2, 2009
The Depreciation Guild's "In Her Gentle Jaws"
Before I get into today's entry, I'd like to hip all three of my readers about the new format. In order to prevent me from going insane, the blog will now have a schedule. Mondays will feature reviews of things in particular, Wednesdays will feature general articles about things in general and Fridays will feature Top 5 lists. This will make it easier on all of us. Now, on to The Depreciation Guild.
I'm not big into chiptunes, unless they come in the form of music from an actual videogame. If they don't, they tend to sound like... well, like videogame music, except it's videogame music that I have no nostalgia for, and is therefore unappealing.
Previously, I hadn't really considered that a band might use chiptunes to back traditional rock 'n' roll. Enter the Depreciation Guild, a Brooklyn band who brilliantly merges shoegazy guitars with catchy chiptune rhythms. The result is rock 'n' roll with videogame music. Which is awesome.
Their debut self-released record, In Her Gentle Jaws, shows the versatility of both chiptune rhythms and shoegazy guitars. The record shows the bands abilities to merge both of these things into danceable power-pop ("Butterfly Kisses"), as well as more morosely traditional shoegazy ("Nautilus") with plenty of stops between (the title track). Overall, if you're into recent indie rock, chiptunes, or old school shoegaze, you owe it to yourself to pick this record up. The band has made it much easier by providing the record for free at their website. So what are you waiting for? At the cost of a little hard drive space, you can have one of the most original albums to come out in the latter half of the decade.
I'm not big into chiptunes, unless they come in the form of music from an actual videogame. If they don't, they tend to sound like... well, like videogame music, except it's videogame music that I have no nostalgia for, and is therefore unappealing.
Previously, I hadn't really considered that a band might use chiptunes to back traditional rock 'n' roll. Enter the Depreciation Guild, a Brooklyn band who brilliantly merges shoegazy guitars with catchy chiptune rhythms. The result is rock 'n' roll with videogame music. Which is awesome.
Their debut self-released record, In Her Gentle Jaws, shows the versatility of both chiptune rhythms and shoegazy guitars. The record shows the bands abilities to merge both of these things into danceable power-pop ("Butterfly Kisses"), as well as more morosely traditional shoegazy ("Nautilus") with plenty of stops between (the title track). Overall, if you're into recent indie rock, chiptunes, or old school shoegaze, you owe it to yourself to pick this record up. The band has made it much easier by providing the record for free at their website. So what are you waiting for? At the cost of a little hard drive space, you can have one of the most original albums to come out in the latter half of the decade.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
