Dave Arneson 10/1/1947 - 04/07/2009 R.I.P.: Another Gaming Legend Passes Away

If it weren't for Gary Gygax and David Arneson, my Saturdays would look very different. Between the two of them, they created a game (and hobby) that has altered the face of recreation. When Gary and David organically created the role playing game called Dungeons & Dragons, I don't think they could ever have guessed that it would lead to the creation of so many exciting games. Without them there would have been no Champions, no Tunnels & Trolls, no Magic the Gathering, no Space Hulk, no Ultima, no World of Warcraft.

Without these men and their creation, the world would be less fun. Given the number of heated arguments about which edition of various role playing games is superior, the world would also be less interesting.

As I read the words, "these men" and "their creation," I realize that I am doing one of these men a disservice. It is true that the combined activities of these two men led to the creation of the Dungeons and Dragons role playing game. They are after all the acknowledged co-creators of the game, as Wizards of the Coast's website so eloquently remembers. But in many ways Dave Arneson is the creator of the role playing game and of the continuing dialectic between mechanics and persona that moves innovation in role playing game design.

Role playing lore tells us that Major Wesely's Braunstein was the ur-roleplaying game. Major David Wesely was the first Dungeon Master (or Game Master), but role playing games may have died in their seedling state if not for the efforts of the first "role player." That gamer was David Arneson. I can try to describe what happened or what it meant for gaming, but I doubt I could do a better job than Ben Robbins from Ars Ludi. Ben writes:

Dave Arneson: Gamer Ex Nihilo

“Peaceful revolutionary. Gets points for printing and delivering leaflets to each of his revolutionaries, and more for handing them out to other civilians (who may be agents or guerrillas of course…). Starts at home. (B-4)”
–Braunstein 4, Banana Republic

When you started gaming you read all these books, and they told you you could be a cleric or a thief or an elf (or a vampire or a Prince of Amber) and they told you you should probably pick a caller and set up a marching order and listen at doors and all that other stuff. You marched your character around and talked in funny voices. Sooner or later you may have realized that the rules didn’t drive the game, your imagination did.

But what if you never had any of those books? What if no one had ever explained to you what roleplaying was? Were you a good enough gamer to become a gamer without even knowing what a gamer was? Could you have just started being a gamer out of thin air, without anyone ever telling you how to do it?

Dave Arneson did.

He lied, swindled, improvised, and played his character to the hilt. He came to the game with fake CIA ID he’d mocked up, so when another player “captured” and searched him he could whip them out. Other players were still moving pieces around the board and issuing orders like a wargame while Dave Arneson was running circles around them and changing the whole scenario. He was winning the game entirely by roleplaying.

You may think of Dave Arneson as one of the godfathers of GMing, but even before that he was the godfather of players. He was, literally, the proto-player.

###

“You’re the student revolutionary leader,” Wesely says “You get victory points for distributing revolutionary leaflets. You’ve got a whole briefcase full of them.”

Much later, having convinced his fellow players that he is really, perhaps, an undercover CIA operative, and that the entire nation’s treasury is really much safer in his hands, Dave Arneson’s character is politely ushered aboard a helicopter to whisk him to safety.

Far below the streets are still churning with fighting, plastic soldiers colliding with innocent citizens and angry rioters. In his lap sits the forgotten briefcase of revolutionary leaflets. “I get points for distributing these right?” And with a sweep of his arm he adds insult to injury, hurling reams of pages into the downdraft of the helicopter where they scatter and float lazily down upon the entire town…

Final score: Dave Arneson, plus several thousand points

Big whoop, you say, this is all old timey stuff. We modern gamers are way beyond dungeon crawls and listening at doors and all that primitive stuff. We have indie games and story games and narrative control and yadda yadda yadda.

Yes indeed. But even skipping the “standing on the shoulders of giants” argument or the “know your roots” argument, look again at what happened in that game: Dave Arneson was winning entirely by roleplaying. He isn’t doing tactical combat or playing some dumb-ass linear quest, he is making his own rules and being, for lack of a better word, an excellent player by any modern definition. He is making the game.

Don’t think Dave Arneson would kick your ass in some Sorcerer or Dogs In The Vineyard? Then you haven’t been paying attention. He would, as the kids say, take you to the net.

Modern gamers are pushing into new territory, but they’re also reclaiming old territory whether they know it not — the lands of their ancestors. If you’re an indie gamer or an avant garde gaming revolutionary, old school titans like Dave Arneson and Major Wesely are your peeps. They were trying things that had never been done before in their day too. They are your guys.

It is rare that people come along and create something truly new. The cliche that there is nothing new under the sun is very often true, but when it isn't we can be inspired and entertained in ways we never thought possible. Role playing games were (and still are) such a new concept in play that theorists debate whether role playing games are merely games or whether they are also a form of art. When you look at a group of gamers moving pieces around a board and rolling dice, role playing games certainly seem to fit nicely into the niche of game. But when you see those same people, descendants of Arneson's CIA agent, acting out their actions and creating entertaining narrative experiences -- some semi-scripted like a Christopher Guest film and others completely improvisational -- the argument that role playing games can be art gains some traction.

One thing is certain, role playing games can move the soul by being immensely pleasurable experiences. They can have this effect no matter how you play them -- hack and slash or persona immersion intensive -- the games make for good friends and good stories.

To repeat a thought above, they make the world more fun.

Thank you Dave for making the world a more interesting and entertaining place.

Wizards Pulls PDFs: Good and Bad for Wizards, Just Good for Competitors

Yesterday, I read a tweet that Wizards of the Coast would be ending all pdf sales of its current and back catalog of products. Wizards required that all of the web-based stores that sell their pdfs not only cease selling pdfs (as of midnight last night), but that they also remove the capability to download previously purchased pdfs from patrons who had purchased pdfs in the past. I regularly purchase pdf products from DriveThruRPG (I use their RPGNow gateway) and from Paizo Publishing. Like many consumers, I am disappointed that Wizards of the Coast will be -- at least temporarily -- suspending all digital sales of their products.

The twitter news was verified by both RPGNow and Paizo. In fact, Paizo sent me an email reminding me to re-download any products that were not currently on my hard drive. The email read as follows:

Wizards of the Coast has notified us that we may no longer sell or distribute their PDF products. Accordingly, after April 6 at 11:59 PM Pacific time, Wizards of the Coast PDFs will no longer be available for purchase on paizo.com; after noon on April 7, you will no longer be able to download Wizards of the Coast PDFs that you have already purchased, so please make sure you have downloaded all purchased PDFs by that time.

At the time, Wizards had given no reason for the cease and desist on all sales, but it quickly came to light that it was response to rampant piracy of their products. Wizards has recently taken eight individuals to court for illegally distributing their recently published Player's Handbook II.

While I am disappointed in Wizards' decision, unlike a lot of people on the internet, I am not angry. In fact, I understand and think that in the long run this choice may be good and bad for Wizards and just plain ol' good for the industry as a whole.

Before I begin my analysis, you should know that I am a strong advocate for creator rights. This means that I am very much pro-copyright and anti-piracy, though it also means that I am highly critical of corporate "work-for-hire" agreements. I understand some need, in a company like WotC/Hasbro, for "brand ownership" of a property for the purpose of continuity, but I think most writers should receive royalties based on current and future sales of IP they helped create. The fact that Gygax and Arneson saw little money from D&D after they were no longer directly contributing to new editions was a tragedy, as is the fact that Wolfgang Baur sees no royalties from Dark * Matter. The gaming industry could learn a lot from the film, tv, and music industries (particularly the film and tv industries) when it comes to acknowledging creator rights.

In addition to being pro-copyright myself, a friend of mine is former Senior Counsel, Content Protection Litigation at Fox. Not only do I think that he isn't evil for suing the hell out of pirates, I think he was right to do so. This is especially true since Section 512 of the DMCA affords Internet service providers with general immunity for transmitting, routing, or providing connections for materials through their networks. The law prevents companies like Fox from attacking the "deep pocket" highways that allow for the illegal transmission of data, and forces Fox to go after the actual criminals who -- lacking deep pockets -- are often sympathetic compared to big companies like WotC and Fox.

I think Section 512 is good and necessary (because I am a fan of free speech and I don't want corporations deciding what I can and cannot write...as I wrote I am a fan of creator ownership and control), but that the current environment forces corporations to act as "law enforcement" which is potentially bad for everyone. By making corporations the enforcers, the law forces corporations to act against their own interests while acting in their own interests. This is the situation that WotC/Hasbro find themselves in. They must defend their property, because no one else will, but in doing so they will alienate fans and cost themselves money.

So, what do I think they should do? According to Landslide (the American Bar Association's IP trade publication), entertainment piracy is "estimated to cause $18 billion in trade losses around the world last year." The ABA information was based on the International Intellectual Property Alliance's Special 301 Letter to the U.S. Trade Representative dated February 11, 2008. This isn't an industry ending problem, but it is a significant one. There is very good news regarding the majority of IP providers cooperating with IP holders when there is alleged infringment, (according to the same source) "ISP compliance rates remain high even in jurisdictions where the framework of intellectual property laws generally is perceived to be weak." But there is also bad news in that there are (once more according to the same source) "rogue sites and ISPs that refuse altogether to play by the DMCA's rules. One of the most notorious examples is the Swedish torrent index site The PirateBay...it has been estimated that The PirateBay enables more than 40 million downloads of protected content every month."

We have a serious problem, and it's a problem that doesn't merely affect big corporations. I have been a patron of Wolfgang Baur's Open Design Project since its inception and have contributed to every project he has worked on so far. The purpose of the project was to create a product that only the funders would have the ability to use. It isn't cheap to participate at the "Patron" level, and I have never felt so used as a consumer when I discovered Open Design Projects listed in bit torrent indexes. While it is true that small companies can actually benefit from file sharing, it can replace advertising for these firms, it is also true that word of mouth without file sharing could work just as well. There is such a thing as fair use and while the particulars of fair use are vague, it certainly includes reviews on websites and message boards.

This problem isn't limited to entertainment either. The AP recently announced that it will be taking a more active role in enforcing the proper use of its content on the internet. For years, people have been cutting and pasting AP articles without paying for the right to publish them and have been contributing to the strains on the news industry. The news industry certainly has other problems as well, but it is still true that the "information wants to be free yo" crowd are helping to nail the coffins in on that industry. And if you think that web ads are going to pay for everything and allow for all the free content you want, you might want to read this article in The Register. Apparently, YouTube "will lose parent Google $470m this year, because it can't generate worthwhile income from advertising." And if advertising won't make up the difference for what is given away free, Atlas will Shrug and the content will go away.

And that is exactly what happened with WotC. Atlas Shrugged and essentially told the world that it was taking its digital toys home and not letting anyone else play with them. This has made a lot of fans very angry. And while it certainly won't stop pirates, it will allow WotC to look for ways to better predict the impact of piracy on their profit margin and provides them an opportunity to look for alternate ways to offer the products digitally.

And here's where I finally write how this is good and bad for Wizards, and just good for the industry.

THE GOOD AND BAD FOR WIZARDS

The good is that Wizards is protecting their intellectual property and is showing a genuine desire to proactively go after pirates. The music industry lawsuits may have been onerously expensive and cost the labels a lot of goodwill, but they also reduced piracy. The lawsuits work. People are actually rational actors and weigh the costs of paying a small fee for a song or potentially getting sued. Wizards actions will likely reduce the amount of piracy they are suffering.

The bad, well...it's the same as the good. Wizards' fans are beginning to feel as if they are the ones being attacked. I don't personally understand how any non-pirate could ever feel this way, but many do. Add to that the fact that Wizards' isn't just suing the fans who are pirates, they are punishing fans who have done no wrong by removing the product from the internet and you have a public relations disaster. This is bad for WotC/Hasbro and is more evidence that the current legal team at WotC have no idea how to deal with their consumers. The first was their awful attempt at a Game System License for 4th edition -- it was too restrictive and like yesterday's action seemed to punish those who wanted to work in WotC/Hasbro's best interest.

I think it is a good thing that WotC/Hasbro removed all of their newer product from digital availability. They still have publishing costs on most of this stuff. They have physical product, which is far more expensive to produce than digital, that needs to "turn over." The 4th edition stuff, contrary to naysayers, is selling well, but it would sell better if piracy were minimized. This is moderately sound business.

I think it is a bad thing that WotC/Hasbro have removed access to all of the out of print product. The bandwidth costs for the products was being absorbed by the online stores, so these were nothing but a revenue stream for WotC/Hasbro. Now the only way to get these products is through second hand distribution, legal and illegal. Either fans hunt the books down on eBay or fans download them illegally. They have no other options. This is bad business.

What WotC/Hasbro need to do is make the old and new available in ways that minimize, because you cannot eliminate, the affects of piracy. The first thing they can do is use a World of Warcraft/Music Subscription model for their digital content. By using a Flash based reader they can allow DDI subscribers to access all of the 4th edition books currently available. They should do this at two fee levels, the player fee and the DM fee. "Players" would be able to access, with an internet connection, any and all player oriented books that are currently in publication -- in addition to other DDI materials -- anytime they want. They will be allowed to read the books for no additional charge. When the core books were the only books, this would have meant just the Player's Handbook, but as time passes it includes more and more books for the same fee. "DMs" should be allowed to read all publications, on Flash Paper, that are in publication for the current edition. It is up to Hasbro whether they want to allow the printing of these books, rather than just the reading of them, but I would recommend that they do.

They should also make available Kindle editions of the books...just for me.

Second, they should allow the purchase of all older editions through either traditional channels or their own pdf store. Piracy is no more, and actually less, a problem with these products when they are available for sale. Currently, you can get the entire catalog on various bit torrents, but you cannot buy them. Let consumers buy them and minimize the damage that piracy is doing to your bottom line. Do this now!

This may be what they are planning, but WotC/Hasbro have been silent on the issue and this is costing them loyalty and goodwill. This also provides a wonderful opportunity for small businesses to fill the gap.

JUST GOOD FOR COMPETITORS

By pulling out of the digital marketplace, WotC/Hasbro have left a large number of legitimate consumers in search of a product provider. Smart companies like Paizo (they are offering their Pathfinder PDFs for 35% off the regular retail price through the end of April), Rogue Games, Louis Porter Jr. Design, are immediately seizing the opportunity. With lower overhead, and lower advertising budgets, than WotC/Hasbro they have much to gain through goodwill and less to lose from piracy. Companies like WorldWorksGames still worries about pirates, but they beg their fans to not become them. They use their small size as a marketing tool to dissuade piracy, and it works...a little (see Open Design comment above). Companies like Pinnacle Entertainment Group couldn't have survived some pretty rough patches if it weren't for digital sales. They still suffer piracy, but their rules and products are also inexpensive so hopefully many pirates become customers in the long run. As I wrote earlier, piracy can serve as word of mouth for these companies. One imagines that few people are so callous as to acquire all of their products through piracy. But it is still true that the same word of mouth could be achieved without piracy.

Nothing will stop these smaller companies from risking the seas of piracy, as they have less to lose than WotC/Hasbro -- and that is a good thing. It is good for the hobby if more companies are competing for your dollar, it leads to innovation in gaming. Savage Worlds, Pinnacle's excellent RPG, wouldn't exist if they hadn't needed to find a new way to compete. The Indie Press Revolution is filled with excellent games, available digitally, looking for your gaming dollar. As long as WotC/Hasbro stay out of the digital market, these companies will have a chance to grow, and that is good for the industry.

It might be bad for WotC/Hasbro, but that depends on what they do in the next few weeks. And I think that is all they have before to announce where they are going digitally before the ill will will overwhelm them.

DEADLIER THAN THE MALE and 24: SEASON 1

The current season of 24 is the first season my wife and I have watched. When the show started, we thought that the premise of a "real time" television action/drama was ingenious. Our lives were very busy, and we had no DVR at the time, so we missed half the first season. We then saw a commercial where Jack's daughter is attacked by a mountain lion and our suspension of disbelief was lost before our viewership began.

Years later, under the continual barrage of recommendations by our friends, we capitulated and started watching the current season.

We like it -- as unrealistic as it is -- very much. We also think they should rename the show to Jack's Very Bad, Horrible, Awful, Day. We also don't like having to wait seven days to see what happens next. We can be thankful for the fact that we haven't seen any of the other season, because now we have some content to view between our weekly updates of Jack's current horrible day.

Naturally, we began our filler viewing with Season One and we're about halfway through the season. I was amazed at how much effort the villains of the first season took just to make sure they could get a shot off at a Presidential Candidate. I thought no one would go through so much effort. But then I saw a post on a blog I regularly read (Lee Goldberg's fine A Writer's Life) entitled "There Have Got to be Easier Ways to Kill a Guy..." which bore surprising similarities to the first episode of 24. Watch the clip and I'll discuss the similarities below.

Now that you've watched the opening to Deadlier than the Male think back to the first episode of 24 -- Day One.

SPOILER ALERT IF YOU HAVEN'T SEEN 24 SEASON ONE

We have a woman who seduces a man on an airplane in order to get his special key card. She then leaves the plane using an explosive device on the airplane's exit door (and another explosive on board for good measure), which causes explosive decompression allowing her to escape as her other bomb blows up the plane. Mind you, this was all to get a key card that would allow an assassin, who has had extensive plastic surgery in order to make him look like the now dead journalist, to enter a location where he could eventually shoot a Presidential candidate. This doesn't even get the gun in his hands, a side of the plot that adds several layers of planning to what is already a convoluted assassination attempt.

END OF SPOILER ALERT

Apparently, the creators of 24 don't agree with Mr. Goldberg. Apparently, they believe there are far more complicated ways to kill a guy.

The Strange Adventures of HP Lovecraft Coming to the Big Screen

In what must have been a strong application of Non-Euclidean Geometry, Mac Carter and Jeff Blitz have inked a movie production deal for a comic that will be released this Wednesday. The Strange Adventures of HP Lovecraft is a comic that combines the fiction of the famous author with biographical information from the author's life. The narrative is a kind of "What if HP Lovecraft was writing about real things?"

It's an interesting idea, but fans of Lovecraft have yet to receive a big screen adaptation of anything Lovecraftian that comes close to capturing the mood of the author's tales. The best "true" Lovecraftian film is the H.P. Lovecraft Historical Society's "period" silent adaptation of Call of Cthulhu that was released in 2005. The made for Showtime version of Dreams in the Witch House comes pretty close to capturing the feel of the books, but the Society's adaptation far outshines the typical Lovecraftian fare like The Dunwich Horror, Die, Monster, Die!, Dagon, and 2007's Cthulhu. This isn't to say that all of these Lovecraft adaptations are horrible, just that most of them fail to capture the building sense of dread of a Lovecraft tale.

The Society's silent was so good that I eagerly await their adaptation of The Whisperer in Darkness.

According to Variety and The Strange Adventures of H.P. Lovecraft blog, Universal thinks that the comic's version of Lovecraftian horror is a good fit for their Classic Monster series and might be a good vehicle for Ron Howard. For genre fans who are alarmed that Mr. Howard might be directing a Lovecraft related film, one should remember that Mr. Howard -- in addition to being a very skilled director -- got his start as a director with Roger Corman. Roger Corman's adaptations of Edgar Allan Poe tales are classics in the horror film canon, and Poe was a major influence on Lovecraft. The Corman - Howard - Poe - Lovecraft connection may seem tenuous. After all Grand Theft Auto was a long time ago, nor was it a horror film, but films like The Da Vinci Code and Willow demonstrate that Howard has a deep affection for genre films and the way he directed madness in A Beautiful Mind would translate easily into representation of personal horror.

My opinion regarding whether the comic itself is worth adapting will have to wait until after the next few months. I would say after this Wednesday, but one should never judge a comic book (or television series) by a single installment.

Most Frightening Bread in the World

Take a second and imagine what you would consider to be the most frightening bread in the world.

Is it some yeast Shoggoth oozing slowly toward you as it consumes city after city?

Is is some mold covered lump that looks as if it is about to rupture, thus producing enough spores to suffocate a small town?

Is it filled with maggots or grubs and thus seems unpalatable?

All of those are certainly frightening, but they are far from the most frightening bread in the world. None of those loaves would simultaneously please Slaanesh, Orcus, Khorne, and Lerotra'hh, as the most frightening bread in the world ought to do. The most frightening bread in the world should be something that would make Edgar Allan Poe and HP Lovecraft smile, a daunting task in and of itself. It should also make for a good decoy when being chased by ravenous zombies.

The world can be thankful that Diana Eid is letting the world know that Kittiwat Unarrom has designed a bread that pleases the dark gods and serves as a perfect distraction for those ravenous zombies. Only in this case, the brains they eat will be made of "dough, raisins, cashews and chocolate." Not exactly zombie fare...and even with those great ingredients I'm too afraid of the bread to even think of eating it.


Image Credit -- Diana Eid

End of Gaming as We Know It Announced at GDC: Hello Kitty MMORPG to Be Released in the US

Every so often there is a paradigm shifting event that occurs within the media. Sometimes it is something like Poe's invention of the detective mystery or the Lucas/Spielberg invention of the blockbuster. In the 1980s, one huge paradigm shift in afternoon animation was the shift to cartoons that were blatant advertisements for lines of toys. When the toys being advertised through cartoon stories were things like GI JOE and TRANSFORMERS, children had much reason to rejoice. But when the next shift came, the STRAWBERRY SHORTCAKE and MY LITTLE PONY shift, teenage boys throughout America wept as they watched their favorite shows replaced by talking ponies.

This week at the Game Developers Convention in San Francisco, a paradigm shift of monumental proportions was announced. Sanrio, the makers of those cute HELLO KITTY artifacts we find at malls across America, are going to be launching a HELLO KITTY MMORPG in the United States. Just when beautiful women like Felicia Day were giving fathers everywhere hope that their daughters could share the joys of crushing Horde Guilds in PvP Raids, Sanrio dashes all those hopes aside by creating this game. Now the young girls of the world will be able to:



"Just soak up the super-cute atmosphere?!" We're doomed. No instanced dungeons slaying the minions of a diabolical lich. No riding giant tigers and Gryphons. No mining for ore to manufacture our sweet rifles so that we can shoot our Orcish enemies. Nope. We can spend money at malls...interact with Sanrio characters...and cultivate our own farm. This gives new meaning to "farming" in an MMO.

What is the father of twin daughters to do?

Oh well...maybe I can customize my character to be like Pochacco. He's cute as can be after all.

Listen to the Geekerati Inteview with David Gaider

Last night, Eric and I had the pleasure of talking with BioWare's David Gaider about his new book Dragon Age: The Stolen Throne and the upcoming video game Dragon Age: Origins. The discussion provided some great insight regarding what we can expect from the next rpg from BioWare.

Given BioWare's excellent record when it comes to quality PC and console rpgs, David and his crew have a lot to live up to and it sounds like they are likely to exceed expectations. Dragon Age: The Stolen Throne takes place thirty years before the event that transpire in the game and makes a natural jumping in point for those who can't wait until the second half of the year for the video game experience.

In the past, many of BioWare's successful rpgs have been based on licensed products. But with recent games like the action-rpg Jade Empire and the deep play of Mass Effect, BioWare has shown an ability to develop immersive settings with compelling narratives.

David Gaider lives in Edmonton, Alberta, and is a Senior Writer at BioWare's Edmonton studio, where he has worked since 1999. He is currently the Lead Writer on Dragon Age: Origins, responsible for story and setting design, and prior to that worked on such titles as Baldur's Gate™ 2, Baldur's Gate™ 2: Throne of Bhaal, Star Wars®: Knights of the Old Republic™, Neverwinter Nights™ and its expansions.

I don't care how cool Apple iPhone ads are, they cannot top this!

How many phones have viral ad campaigns featuring Formula 1 drivers using their phone to drive their F1 vehicle?

The Blackberry Storm does.

Watch the last minute of this viral video to see Lewis Hamilton use a Blackberry Storm to steer his F1 car.



Now, if only I can figure out which frequency Hamilton was on...then I can guarantee an F1 victory for Kimi next year!

P.S.: I know the remote thing is camera magic. It's still bitchin'

Fox Demonstrates the Madness of the Film Industry as They Plan a "Relaunch" of the Fantastic Four

There are times when studios completely drop the ball and need to remake movies, or reboot franchises. Sometimes the source material underperformed because the initial attempt to tell a story fell short of the mark, either financially or creatively. A perfect example is the 1980s film version of Captain America. The 80s film version of everyone's favorite All-American Hero is arguably the worst superhero film ever made. It was a failure both financially and critically.

Typically, film studios could care less about whether a film fails critically, as long as it succeeds financially. As long as the film brings in money, they'll be satisfied. Likely, they'll make sequels. That seems to be changing. Now the studios seem to be becoming obsessed with making "re-envisionings" of moderately to very successful franchises. First, Marvel decided to remake the Hulk. They argued that the Ang Lee version lacked the quintessential "Hulk Smash" qualities they and fans were looking for, and that the film underperformed financially. Therefore, it was "necessary" to have a remake in the theaters a mere 5 years after the last version of the film.

This was, naturally, a load of crap. Sure, the Ang Lee film wasn't what comic book fans wanted or expected (that includes the good folks here at Cinerati). It wasn't really a Hulk film. As comic book fans, we don't know what it was. But that doesn't matter. There are only 200,000 or so of us comic book fans, and that only comes to $2-million of any superhero movie's box office. For a superhero movie to succeed, it has to appeal to non-comic book fans and put rears in the seats. Did Ang Lee's film, universally panned by critic and fan alike, succeed? Yes. The film made $132-million domestically, and had a world-wide gross of almost $242-million. Enough money that any DVD sales were all gravy.

But they made a re-envisioned remake anyway. Did The Incredible Hulk do scads better than the Ang Lee's Hulk? Critically? Yes. The new version is closer to what people expected in a Hulk film. The film has its problems, not the least of which is the abandonment of the Hulk as metaphor for Nuclear Arms for the more topical Hulk as metaphor for performance enhancing baseball players. That and the conversion of the Hulk's cold-war anti-thesis into a British special forces guy who doesn't like the fact that he is aging. So...it's not the comic book Hulk, but who cares. As I wrote earlier, there are only 200,000 of us comic book fans anyway. Did The Incredible Hulk do better financially? No. It cost $150-million, which given that dollars decrease in value with time means the films cost similar amounts. $132-million in 2003 is approximately $150-million in 2008. But The Incredible Hulk made $254-million in world wide box office, which is also similar to the $242-million that Ang Lee's version made.

While it might have been silly from a certain point of view for Marvel to give us a remade Hulk, it was profitable and it gave us a Hulk film where the first hour was actually fun and where we didn't have to watch killer poodles, so it didn't seem ridiculous for the studio to make the move. If only we had known what was coming down the pipe.

What was coming down the pipe was a re-envisioning of The Punisher in last year's Punisher: War Zone. Never mind that Thomas Jane was compelling as Frank Castle. The film only managed $34-million in domestic box office and had little appeal overseas. Add to that the fact that some fans panned the film as not at all like the comic book. A claim that is patently false. Excepting the lame and over-the-top performance by John Travolta many of the scenes were cut straight from the Marvel Max series. No one understands why anyone hires John Travolta to play villains, he can't pull it off. Cast him as a nice guy and it's often a real treat, but as a villain he's like nails on chalkboard.

The Thomas Jane Punisher was the Punisher of the couple Garth Ennis series and not of the older Steven Grant or Mike Baron issues. So that explains some of the fan backlash. Older fans, who no longer buy comic books, didn't get what they expected. Newer fans got the Punisher of the books, but sadly they also got a villain who was out of the old Batman television series. So...with critical and financial "failure" Lionsgate decided a remake was in order and made Punisher: War Zone. .

If they wanted to make a better Punisher movie... they failed. If they wanted to make more money... they failed. The new Punisher film cost Lionsgate $22-million and made a whopping $8-million. There were some fun elements to the new film, but the box office demonstrated that the character only had so much appeal to him beyond the comic fan base.

That's really the crux of the issue. Some characters have a limit to how broad an appeal they have. The Hulk? He's worth around $250-million. The Punisher? $30-million if you're lucky.

The same is likely true of the latest re-envisioning coming down the pipe. Fox plans to make a whole new Fantastic Four movie with a new cast and a new vision -- less "bubble gum". I guess $329-million and $280-million aren't profitable enough for Fox. They have to dive in with a re-envisioning to make the title less "bubble gum." Because, you know, the Fantastic Four is known for its super grim story lines.

[sarcasm]Super grim stories are so easy to write when one of your characters' superpower is elasticity. Yeah, comics are filled with grim stretchy guys like Plastic Man and Elongated Man. Those guys make Rorschach look like Jerry Lewis. [/sarcasm]

It just doesn't seem to make sense, even given lukewarm critical and fan acceptance of the current Fantastic Four -- especially given how perfect Chris Evans is as the Human Torch. It doesn't make sense...unless you're a Hollywood studio who might have to turn the rights over if you don't make a film using the intellectual property and you think that a sequel might not play as well marketing wise as a re-invention.

The marketing shift for a reboot makes sense when thinking about a studio desperately clinging to IP rights. This quote from ICv2 might help to put a little light on the subject, "with Marvel eager to reclaim its properties for its Marvel Studios moviemaking arm, Fox is in a situation of “use it or lose it” with the FF and Daredevil. Since the Fantastic Four films were far more successful that the ill-fated Fox Daredevil, it makes sense for the studio to concentrate its efforts on the FF first."

You see Marvel wants those rights back and Fox has a limited window to keep that $300-million a film franchise in its stable. They have to make something and make it fast or rights return to Marvel. So instead of negotiating with the cast of the prior two films, who are more expensive now and might have scheduling conflicts, you sell the public on the re-envision angle. You kill three birds with one stone. You potentially make the movie cheaper, you talk the people who were critical of the first two into giving you another chance, and you retain the rights for another sequel if this one makes another $300-million. Win-win for Fox.

You know what this reminds me of? It reminds me of the Roger Corman version of the Fantastic Four. You see...he made that one on a tight schedule just so someone could keep the option.

One Year Ago Today Gamers Lost a Legend

Today's a day to crack open your copy of Chainmail and peruse your copy of Deities and Demigods (the Elric/Cthulhu version natch) and remember the man who helped create an entirely new way to play. Without Gary, there would be no World of Warcraft, no Ultima, and no weekend get-togethers with friends where dragons are slain and dungeons are sacked. There would also be at least one fewer Uwe Boll movie, but I can endure many more of those so long as I can sit around the table with my friends and role play.

Nerdvana at the East Valley Tribune has a nice small reminder up.

Our piece last year can serve as a reminder to not let opportunities, even ones guaranteed to be awkward, pass you by. I still wish I had knocked on Gary's door.

Jhoom Barabar Jhoom: The Conversation Continued

When I wrote my review of JBJ, I did so in the hopes that LA Weekly's Bollywood critic David Chute would read the piece. David has been on the cutting edge of film viewing trends since his days advocating Hong Kong cinema before it was cool to do so. He's perceptive and I wanted to know what he and his fellows over at the Hungry Ghost Blog thought about my little piece.

The blog highlighted my review and I was immediately attacked (not personally) in the comments section for beginning my piece with a discussion of a disconnect between the opinions of the native viewing audience in India and the opinions of those American critics who deigned to review the piece. Tulkinghorn, writing from his "capacious writing-table... on which is a pretty large accumulation of papers," was the one who took me to task by stating (slightly edited):

Gee.

Seems to me that trying to figure out what people in Glendale think about American blockbusters is hard enough if you... live in Glendale.

Trying to figure out from Southern California what people in Bombay think about Indian blockbusters is almost certainly pointless.

It violates either one or both of David's rules in the immediately preceding post.

On the other hand, figuring out why YOU like the movie is very useful...

I take it as a complement that the sinister attorney is interested in my own reasons for liking/disliking a particular film.

Mr. Chute, who for some reason goes by the name Generic on the blog (I will have to talk with him about this), came to my defense in an interesting comment. What was most interesting about the comment was a quote that had little to do with my JBJ review per se. His comment included a kernel of an underlying philosophy of what it is to be a reviewer, a question that I find very interesting -- and will write more about tomorrow when I look at an essay Poe wrote about Poetry criticism. Mr. Chute writes:

As I understood the code of the profession when I was coming up the ideal was not care whether a given film had been validated by the box office or other critics. If you liked something, you said so. To do other wise was dishonest and/or cowardly. Each critic creates his/her own Pantheon. Endorsing something the cool group despised was a badge of honor; in a twisted way this made you even cooler.

This is followed by comments in defense of my original review. Kind and insightful words, but nowhere near as interesting as the paragraph above. There is so much to unpack in this paragraph that one could devote a career, let alone a series of blog entries, to examining the assumptions discussed in it. I should point out that nothing in the above states that Mr. Chute currently agrees with the content of the paragraph, merely that it represents the code of the critical profession as he understood it when he was "coming up." Never the less, it is an exciting paragraph.

I wrote a quick response, which sadly ended up as the last word on the topic. I am going to reproduce my comment in full here, in the hopes of soliciting more discussion.

I believe a critic should always examine his/her own views in relation to the views of others, both other critics and "the masses." One should always be reflective when reviewing. The box office may not be a perfect measurement of the zeitgeist, but I have taken to many economics courses to dismiss Price, and the willingness to pay, as at minimum a proxy for what people enjoy.

I firmly agree that the views of others, the "public" if you will, should not shape what a critic says. Otherwise, their opinion is a mere populist voicing that adds nothing to the medium. And adding something to the medium is one of the legitimate roles of the critic.

Equally, reviling something the cool group likes, merely because they like it (I know this isn't what you are advocating) is as pointless as liking something because other like it. Certainly, another legitimate role of the critic is to champion that which might otherwise be overlooked, or even reviled, were it not for an astute critical mind.

I believe that by examining the disconnect between critical reception and audience reception, one can find both why one enjoyed a film, but also what one might otherwise overlook.

I would never have overlooked the slow first act of JHOOM BARABAR JHOOM, it was readily apparent but as readily overwhelmed by the overall enjoyment of the film. A large rock takes a lot of effort to move, but once it is moving it really moves. JBJ was the same.

I might have overlooked the soft gloved, almost trivial, way the movie dealt with Pakistani and Indian relations if I wasn't focused on thinking about the disconnect. A part of the film takes place in England, and I've read enough John King to understand that setting the film in England involves certain assumptions -- which are barely touched on in the film. Partly because we are dealing with Romantic Comedy and you don't want to go too dark. But that is what separates "Loves Labours Lost" from "Much Ado About Nothing," the stakes are different.

While I would never presume to speak for why the Indian public responded to JBJ less enthusiastic than I did, knowing that they did helps me examine beyond first impressions. One must find tools to break through their visceral and vicarious eyes to get to the voyeuristic one.

The Glamorous Life of a Hollywood Assistant

Wonder what people with Master's Degrees do while they are "writing their screenplays" in the hopes of a great job in Hollywood? The Back of the Class are rapping Truth to Power in this video.

Hollywood ASST from Back of the Class on Vimeo.

Jhoom Barabar Jhoom: Once the Inertia Takes Hold, It's Hard to Stop Swaying to the Rythm

2007's Jhoom Barabar Jhoom was a financial flop in India. The film cost Rs 25-crore (250 million rupies -- slightly more than $5 million) to produce and was unable to reach the bar necessary to stay in release after its first week in Indian theaters. It had made around Rs 6-crore after its first weekend -- including international sales -- a figure close to $1.2 million and less than a quarter of the film's production costs. The film's lack of financial success, in India at least, didn't stop those critics who reviewed the film from raving over the entertainment value of the film. It's Tomato Meter rating is 83% fresh (with only 6 reviews), and the two critics who have rated it for Metacritic give it a 70 (not great, but good). The users on Metacritic haven't been as kind as the reviewers -- though none of the users have commented regarding why they rated the film as they did.

So we are given two distinct representations regarding JBJ's entertainment value. American critics giving one opinion and the domestic Indian reaction providing evidence of a disconnect between the American critical reception and popular opinion. What's going on here? Cinerati's trusted source on all things Bollywood David Chute thought highly of the film and his opinion was the primary reason that cinerati viewed the film in the security of our Sanctum Sanctorum recently. The film was a pleasurable combination of romantic comedy, physical comedy, and musical. As Chute puts it, "Jhoom Barabar Jhoom is light entertainment so gratifyingly well crafted that it’s uplifting."

He's right, but then why the disconnect between certain audiences? What is it about Jhoom Barabar Jhoom that critics, and cinerati, found so engrossing that many viewers missed? Or is about "missing" something at all? What are the roots of the differing viewpoints? There seem to be three where the critic would find a film (especially a foreign one) enjoyable, while native and mainstream audiences might find the film wanting. These include, a slow first act, a passing engagement with the conflict between Pakistan and India, and a "Western" feel.

Jhoom Barabar Jhoom opens with Bollywood veteran Amitabh Bachchan as a kind of Gypsy Storyteller/Greek Chorus fusion. As he sings and dances, in his vibrant costume, he sets the stage and stakes of the narrative. The setting is nothing less than a classic lovers introduction, straight out of Shakespeare, where the destined lovers from vastly divergent backgrounds encounter one another in what begins as a mildly antagonistic situation. Nothing new about this setting, we've seen it a hundred times or more. It works when the characters are charming and it fails miserably when the characters are flat.

In this case, our fated couple are Rikki (Abishek Bachchan) and Alvira (Preity Zinta) and they meet at London's Waterloo Station. He's a borderline con-man from India, she's a born Brit from the middle-class with Pakistani heritage. On a typical day class and racial issues would prevent them from even greeting each other pleasantly, but today is different. Today the train station is so crowded that the only place Rikki can find to sit is next to the lovely Alvira. At first, she is uncomfortable tells Rikki that she is waiting for her fiancé to arrive on the Birmingham train. After he reveals that he too is engaged, the stage is set for conversation and romance...But wait, they're engaged right...or are they?

To pass the hours, Rikki and Alvira share stories about how they met their respective fiancés. Rikki's story comes first, and so does the films first and third problems.

It takes almost 15 minutes to get through the story's set up, and it seems to take forever for Rikki to tell the story about how he and his fiancé Anaida (Lara Dutta) met in Paris. There are several attempts at slapstick comedy during his tale, but most of them fall flat and one begins to wonder how Abishek Bachchan was cast in this film in the first place. The written jokes are dull and the narrative drags until the act ends with a spectacular dance number on the streets of Paris that incorporates the Arc de Triomphe, the Eiffel Tower, and the Louvre.

The dance number recaptures any waning audience interest. Jhoom Barabar Jhoom seems to have approached the introduction of the first full dance number with baby steps, as if it were educating an unfamiliar audience to a new form of entertainment. It is during Rikki's story, and the build up to it, that one begins to think that Jhoom Barabar Jhoom is attempting to introduce "Western" eyes to Bollywood storytelling. It doesn't work. All it does is make the first act take far too long. Like the more Western parts of Bride and Prejudice, the attempts at making the storytelling style less dramatic only make the story less entertaining. Thankfully, once the film begins to "dance" the enjoyment begins to rise.

Alvira's tale about her fiancé Steve (Bobby Deol) is hilarious, but it is also the tale where the underlying cultural and racial conflicts come most to the fore of the narrative. In her tale, we find out that Alvira has made a promise to God to never marry a dark-skinned man. It is a promise she modified when she "fell in love" with Steve, but the scene where she makes the promise is simultaneously amusing and disturbing. Imagine a similar scene in an American film where race is one of the underlying relationship barriers and you can begin to see the problem. One can imagine that Indian viewers might not appreciate the lighthearted way that this subject was treated. They might not have found it disturbing at all, but it isn't hard to imagine it rubbing the audience at least slightly the wrong way.

Aside from this glitch, Alvira's story is wonderful -- especially for those who are comic book fans. Steve, you see, has saved Alvira from being crushed by a wax dummy of Superman. Her rescue is followed by a wonderful magical number which features wax caricatures of several members of the Justice League and Bobby Deol's physical presence and charisma is undeniable. One finds oneself visually drawn to him during the number, even though one of the most beautiful women in the world is standing right next to him.

Continuing on the roll of engaging narrative, following Alvira's tale Rikki tells his second tale. This tale is an imagining of what Rikki and Alvira's future would be if only they weren't each already engaged. There is little dialogue, though much song, in this sequence and it is one of the most romantic examples of visual storytelling ever to be filmed. The "what if" Rikki and Alvira live an entire lifetime in the tale, and the segment ends with a soft touch of romantic pathos as this romance suffers the inevitable fate of all romances.

While one can imagine that the attempts to appeal to Western viewers, the cursory addressing of cultural/racial tensions, and a slow first act could make some view the film as less enjoyable, one finds it almost incredible that anyone who has watched the last half-hour of the film could do anything other than rave about Jhoom Barabar Jhoom.

The final half-hour is one long dance number during which our secondary couple "Anaida" and "Steve" are introduced to one another and also when all the plans of our fated lovers completely fall apart. The music, the dancing, and the costume changes are fantastically enjoyable leaving the audience with the desire to dance. Bobby Deol's presence once more steals the scene as he dances with power and conviction. The only flaw in the act is that the dance number fails to fully simulate the "bed trick" during the number. There should be, and sadly isn't, a discreet section of the number where the dancers change partners only to find they are more comfortable with their new partners than with the partner they arrived with. This is a small quibble, but it is significant. This number should be an allegory for the entire film's narrative, and it is but for the one flaw.

Overall, Jhoom Barabar Jhoom is an engaging romantic comedy that stumbles a little, but gets its audience to a fulfilling ending.

Is the Geek Sexy Star of The Guild Felicia Day a Griefer?

Will Hindmarsh, of the excellent game design discussion website GamePlayWright, posted the following excerpt from Jimmy Fallon's late night show. In the piece, sweet and innocent Felicia Day -- star of THE GUILD and Dr. Horrible (among other things) -- decides to help Jimmy Fallon in his quest to become a better MMORPG player. The bit is humorous, and was obviously intended to be, but it touches upon one of negative aspects of online gaming...that of the griefer -- the person who likes to run around killing n00bs.

Watch the video below to see if you catch what I am referring to.



Did you notice her reaction when Fallon mentioned that he called his character Davarnon? She shows an understandable amount of revulsion at the childish name (though it's better than Lothar of the Hill People -- see below -- an actual Mike Myers D&D character), but she also expresses that the name may be why Fallon is griefed so often when playing the game. The implication, from the limited representation of her gaming style in this video, is that she would have griefed him as well.

One of the major drawbacks of MMOs is the tendency of some players to take great enjoyment in killing new players over and over again...for laughs. As a gamer, it can get irritating when one is on the victim side of the equation, and we find of Player vs. Player action to be juvenile at best. MMO companies have yet to find good solutions to this style of play, as those who most enjoy it will pursue ways around any in game fixes. A famous example would be when Asheron's Call veterans, unable to attack less experienced characters directly, would antagonize some large beast, have it chase them, and then run by some newer player leaving the new players character crushed by the monstrosity.

The Fallon piece, and Hindmarch's comments, also makes clear the distinction between the fanciful suspension of disbelief of the new player and the pragmatic "assumed systemic" worldview of the veteran. The veteran seems to no longer be participating in a narrative fantasy simulation experience, rather they are viewing the experience through the rational systems underlying the mechanical functions of the game universe. This usually occurs gradually as the experienced player discovers the limitation of the given simulation and adapts their expectations to suit the mechanical framework. In a computer simulation, this is the only possible response, other than complaining to the programmers to expand the scope of the simulation.

One of the advantages of table top gaming is that it need not suffer from this problem. If a table top game's systems cannot emulate a given desired narrative situation, the players and game master can make up the difference through player interaction or Game Master fiat. This can be one of the more rewarding experience in a table top game, the crafting of new rules on the fly. You cannot do that in a computer simulation, you must accept the systemic framework you are given.

The jadedness of such limitations may be partially explanatory for the griefing phenomenon, but given Felicia's recent tweets regarding a D&D game she is playing in as a Death Knight...I am thinking that she vents her frustrations on the console/gaming table. That's something that both tabletop and computer based gaming can offer...stress relief.

It breaks our heart to think that Felicia Day might be a cruel griefer, we'll chalk it all up to stress relief.

Michelle Nephew has some words about role taking in gaming environments in her dissertation, we'll have to pull that out for a post on role playing as wish fulfillment on a later post.

Cinerati Lexicon #2: Gothtentious

Last August we presented our first Cinerati Lexicon entry. That entry focused on what we like to call filmic cultural selectivity. It has come time once again for the Cinerati blog to share another definition with you based on our movie going/appreciating experience.

Like most film fans, we have a flixter account and are fond of examining how closely our "friends" and our tastes match up. In the past, this has led to some pleasant surprises. Not the least of which is that Anne Thompson's opinions match Cinerati's so well that we are considered "Soul Mates." This is true even with our vast disagreement on Pretty Woman. She likes it a lot and we think that it overly debases the Eliza character from My Fair Lady and is thus only worthy of scorn. We must admit though that the recent episode of Flight of the Conchords had a compelling review/interpretation of Pretty Woman. Suffice it to say, that the close proximity of our film tastes will make Cinerati more likely to trust Thompson as someone who likes the films we like.

Other comparisons have been less rewarding. During our most recent foray into the flixterverse, we encountered something we thought impossible. One of my flixter friends, who shall remain nameless in order to protect their life, rated The Incredibles a meager 1/2 star out of five. We had believed that such a rating was only possible when the reviewer lacked this little thing we call a soul. Alas, it appears that this misguided individual does in fact have a soul -- and is a pretty good reviewer to boot -- so their must be some other explanation. Cinerati has yet to discover what affliction this individual suffers from that makes them hate The Incredibles, and makes them believe that Tom Cruise's War of the Worlds is better than The Matrix, while simultaneously having a proper love for YouTube videos featuring Bettie Page photographs and music by The Cramps.

Our initial suspicion was that this individual was extremely Gothtentious.

What do I mean by Gothtentious?

Gothtentious

Gothtentious is a neologism combining the words Gothic and pretentious.

According to the Oxford English Dictionary (in a March 2008 Draft Addition), Gothic can be defined as: "Of or designating a genre of fiction characterized by suspenseful, sensational plots involving supernatural or macabre elements and often (esp. in early use) having a medieval theme or setting."

Additionally, Gothic may be defined as (OED Additions Series 1993): "A style of rock music, and the youth culture associated with this, deriving originally from punk, and characterized by the dramatically stark appearance of its performers and followers, reminiscent of the protagonists of (esp. cinematic) gothic fantasy, and by mystical or apocalyptic lyrics."

The most common definition of pretentious, according to the OED, is: "Attempting to impress by affecting greater importance or merit than is actually possessed; making an exaggerated outward display; ostentatious, showy."

Thus gothtentious would be when someone is "attempting to impress by affecting a demeanor which disdains all that is not suspenseful and macabre. Especially, the gothtentious person reserves particular disdain for lighthearted and bourgeois entertainments. The individual will also praise material that is otherwise lacking in merit for the mere fact that it contains an appropriate amount of macabre or suspenseful content."

The gothtentious person would often be willing to take a position of disdain for a particular entertainment vehicle merely to distinguish themselves from the crowd. Such opinions may be driven by a narcissistic desire for attention, even negative attention, from others, or from an underlying sense that one is held in similar disdain by society at large. In these cases, the gothtentious person is acting out against society either for attention or as revenge.

An example of this kind of gothtentious would be the following:

Films like The Incredibles are a perfect example of Hollywood, and America's, obsession with bourgeois morality tales. In it, the dichotomy between hero and villain is clear and even the "children" of the tale can act without fear of any real consequences. We all know how the story is going to end...happily. It is time to move beyond these stories and grapple with the underlying sense of despair intrinsic in the human condition. It would be much better to devote storytelling resources to narratives like insert Neil Gaiman, China Mieville, or Poe reference here.

Another example might be found within Michael Moorcock's excellent Wizardry and Wild Romance:

I think my own dislike of J.R.R. Tolkien lies primarily in the fact that in all those hundreds of pages, full of high ideals, sinister evil and noble deeds, there is scarcely a hint of irony anywhere. its tone is one of relentless nursery room sobriety: "Once upon a time," began nanny gravely, for the telling of stories was a serious matter, "there were a lot of furry little people who lived happily in the most beautiful, gentlest countryside you could possibly imagine, and then one day they learned that Wicked Outsiders were threatening this peace...." ...That such nostalgic pre-pubescent yearnings should find a large audience in England is bad enough, but that they should have international appeal is positively terrifying.

As Moorcock demonstrates, the gothtentious person could also be described as a kind of social provocateur who -- when in possession of a serious intellect -- forces other individuals in society to examine what it is about a particular entertainment vehicle they find so rewarding. Gothtentiousness need not be a character flaw but it can certainly be irritating when it is done without the wit and sophistication of a writer like Moorcock. One should also point out that when Moorcock was writing Wizardry and Wild Romance he was drafting a polemic which argued for a new form of fantasy fiction. Specifically, it was arguing for the style of fantasy that Moorcock himself was writing. This is no small coincidence and is evidence of the gothtentious nature of the work.

Funicular is Fun to Say: Waiting to Ride Angel's Flight Isn't

Last month Cinerati was chatting with Kevin Roderick of LA Observed about the various hidden treasures that can be found in Los Angeles. Eventually, the conversation turned to Los Angeles' famous funicular Angel's Flight. The funicular has been closed since February 1, 2001 after an accident resulted in one death and 7 injuries, but it has been an iconic LA landmark featured in a number of films and television shows. One might argue that no visit to LA is complete without a quick ride up the funicular.

Sadly, Cinerati has never had the chance to ride this historically important attraction. We have desired to ride the funicular since seeing the Burt Lancaster noir film CRISS CROSS, and the 1955 version of KISS ME DEADLY, in both films the inclusion of the funicular added greater verisimilitude to the atmosphere of the film.

Cinerati moved down to Los Angeles in August of 2000 and by the time we had settled into the city and could make the time to visit the funicular, it had been closed down due to the aforementioned accident. Thankfully, this may soon be remedied. According to LA Downtown News, the famous funicular might open "soon." How long soon is isn't exactly clear, but one can guess it is less than the 8 years we have already waited to ride the contraption. In a city as automobile centric as Los Angeles is, there is something special about being able to take a quick ride on something that has been around since 1901.

Note: The image at the start of this article is from the 1955 version of KISS ME DEADLY. The screen capture came from Electric Earl's ANGEL'S FLIGHT IN THE MOVIES PAGE. Check out the page and buy Images of America Angel's Flight book.

I've Been 25 Random Thing'ed on Facebook

Yesterday, I was tagged by my friend Rob with the 25 Things "chain note." I spent about half an hour writing the response when I accidentally hit one of the hot buttons on my Firefox menu instead of hitting a tab. I had been switching between tabs to include links to some of the things I was commenting about and suffered the consequences. Specifically, I lost half an hour's writing as I backclicked and found that everything I had written no longer existed. It was a frustrating experience, so I am going to rewrite the post today. First, here on Cinerati so that the "world" can see it. Then I'll post it to Facebook.

So here's the gig:

Rules: Once you've been tagged, you are supposed to write a note with 25 random things, facts, habits, or goals about you. At the end, choose 25 people to be tagged. You have to tag the person who tagged you. If I tagged you, it's because I want to know more about you.

(To do this, go to “notes” under tabs on your profile page, paste these instructions in the body of the note, type your 25 random things, tag 25 people (in the right hand corner of the app) then click publish.)

And here goes:

1) I love to surprise people by having an affection for some part of popular culture that they do enjoy. I like it best when this is an unexpected shared "guilty pleasure." This is why I'll watch anything from "The OC" to "The Real Houswives of Orange County" as well as anything from "Heroes" to "Legend of the Seeker." I'm not one of those who seeks to lord my knowledge of a particular segment of popular culture, like...say... comic books or role playing games, over others. Rather, I am constantly exposing myself to new things in order to have these happy surprise moments.

2) I am pretentiously anti-pretense. There's a part of me that hates it when people talk about "THE WATCHMEN" as the "world's greatest graphic novel." First, it is a comic book. It was a 12 issue maxi-series. Second, it's really good, but there are so many good comic books that I have lost count. Third, most people who talk about how cool "THE WATCHMEN" "graphic novel" is have either a) never read it or b) are saying it to be "cool." It isn't cool to say WATCHMEN is good, it is merely true. It is uncool to say WATCHMEN is a "graphic novel." Maybe you are referring to the "trade paperback" or "Absolute Hardcover Collected Edition?" (Quotation marks around the first two reference are there to point out the error of the attribution in the first two quotes. The series is merely called WATCHMEN, comic book fans know this.)


3) I also think that Science Fiction and Fantasy Genre fans should ban Michael Chabon from receiving any awards until he tells off the literati in NYC. Michael is one of the shining lights of genre fiction. He could be the modern day equivalent of Lin Carter -- with far more talent. He could champion his influences so much that he ends up editing scads of anthologies and a line of books instead of doing a "McSweeney's" anthology intended for only the "literate" SF/F fan. Come on man! Help educate the literati that your GENTLEMEN OF THE ROAD is influence by Fritz Leiber's Fafhrd and the Grey Mouser stories. Fans got it, your publisher pointed it out, but the critics totally missed it. Besides, they should be reading the Leiber stories. Maybe they can skip "The Snow Women," but the others...grrr. Your article on capes in the New Yorker was a good start (http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/03/10/080310fa_fact_chabon), but I want more! Be a champion of the genre or no more Hugos for you! In fact, let's take your recent one away and give it to John Scalzi.

4) I like heavy metal, punk, goth, emo, pop punk, some rap, techno, classical, crooners, 50s rock, classic rock, and a long list of other music. I don't tend to listen too much to "modern pop," but I do think that Christina Aguilera has miles more talent than Britney and I own a couple Avril Lavigne cds. I am always in the mood for Prince. The same can be said for most Metallica. Let me put it this way. I like the Go-Gos, but I don't like Belinda Carlisle.

5) I prefer third person shooters to first person ones. This is because third person ones "tend" to have better stories than first person ones and they attempt to be more cinematic. It isn't because I get owned (pwnt) every time I log on to Xbox Live (though that does usually happen). It's more that I like "living the movie" more than I like taunting some 12 year old in Sheboygan as I repeatedly shoot him in the face.

6) Speaking of pwnt, Backgammon is Victorian English for pwnt and I have decided to use it on a regular basis. Some people might say, and I summon Balor FTW! I'll say, and summoning Balor means Backgammon beeyotch! Nice combination of bizarre Victorian formality and modern vulgarity, don't you think?

7) I am deeply devoted to my wife of 12 years (this May) and cannot imagine life without her. One look/call/email from her is a dose of condensed joy.

8) On that note. I always knew that I wanted children. I have worked with a lot of young people and really like kids. But I am amazed at how much I underestimated how much I would enjoy being the father of twin girls. I was excited when my wife and I decided to "try." I was overjoyed when I found out she was pregnant, and elated when I heard it would be twins. It all pales to the reality of hanging out with Nora and Clio. It gets better everyday. Which gives me some idea of how much they are going to break my heart from time to time.

9) I have currently put my study toward a Ph.D. in Politcal Science (focus in American Politics and Political Philosophy) at Claremont Graduate University on hold so that I can get an MBA at Cal Poly Pomona. I am at a point in my career where I want to transition from the non-profit world into the profit world and it makes perfect sense. My hope is to get hired by Mattel, Hasbro, or some sort of Entertainment Industry company. Some people think it's odd to put a Ph.D. at a top tier school on hold to get an MBA at a less prestigious (but still very respected) university. Not me. Anderson and Marshall are too expensive, in time and money, and work is able to reimburse all my Cal Poly tuition costs. Free = w00t.

10) This past year, I took my wife's last name. I told you I was devoted to her.

11) My daughter Nora Thekla Lindke is named after Nora Charles (of the Thin Man), my grandmother Thekla, and my wife Jody Lindke. My younger daughter (by one minute) Clio Millie Lindke is named after the muse of history (who Herodotus appealed to when he wrote his famous History), Jody's grandmother Millie, and my wife. In case you were wondering.

12) I believe that friendship is more important than politics. I actually have a whole theory that friendship is the root of politics properly understood. If a society is to be just, it must be a society of friends and when one treats those around him/her as friends one acts with greater prudence. One finds it easier to disagree agreeably with friends than with ciphers. That's not the whole theory (by which I mean philosophic outlook and not falsifiable theory, though I imagine one could design a falsifiable test given sufficient time).

13) My mother died of heroin addiction 10 years ago last October. Most of my friends know this, as I blog about it annually (http://cinerati.blogspot.com/2008/10/in-memoriam-ten-years-later-eugenie.html). The blog post is my gentile way of observing the jahrzeit.

14) One of my best friends from high school, he went to a different school than I did, committed suicide in April of 1999. We had just started rekindling our friendship which had stalled when I took my 5 year "semester off" from college. Eight years before he took his life, he told me how he would kill himself if he ever committed suicide. The method he described, was the method he used. I miss him desperately. He was a great person who introduced me to so many new things and gave me new ways of looking at things.

15) I'm a geek. I know this isn't exactly news, but it is true. I like comic books, role playing games, video games, and the occasional anime. If you can geek out about it, I'll try. That includes Formula 1. I'm a big Formula 1 geek.

16) I am a completist. When I am introduced to something new, if I like it I will try to find out as much about it as I can. If it is a game, I will buy it and all its expansions. If it is a philosopher, I will buy several translations of their works. For example, I like superheroes and role playing games. So I have made it a goal to own every superhero rpg ever published. So far, so good. That' includes Superhero 2044 and Supergame btw.

17) I still love every person I told I love them. Whether it was a friend or girlfriend, they still hold a special place in my heart.

18) I have been cruel to exactly 3 people. I am sure that I have pissed off or slighted countless others. I have been less considerate than I should have been many times (haven't we all?), but I have been cruel to only three. I didn't desire to be cruel any of the three times, but I was and I cannot forgive myself for what I did. If I explain the events to you, you might say something like "but you were young" or some other common saying -- I didn't kill anyone after all -- but there is no excuse for how I treated these people. One of whom I still love, though I haven't seen or heard from her in 20 years.

19) I love the TV shows I grew up with, but haven't liked any of the "re-envisioned" shows the networks have provided me. I prefer original BSG to the new one, which I think is too pretentious. The new Bionic Woman was horrible, as is the new Knight Rider. I have found that I like the shows "inspired" by the ones I liked. For example, I really dig CHUCK. This critique doesn't apply to movies. I liked the MIAMI VICE movie...a lot.

20) I am one of approximately 40 people who liked the SPEED RACER movie.

21) I have met most of my best friends because of my hobbies.

22) I truly value "non-partisan" non-partisanship. I love being the director of a program committed to increasing youth civic engagement. This means I want liberal young people to vote AND conservative young people to vote. To me non-partisan doesn't mean finding a "right" answer to a question, though some questions certainly have answers, it's about engaging and listening to everyone and helping them come to a better understanding of their own beliefs. I want you to become the best you possible (to be cliche). I love it when people not only have beliefs, but understand why they have them. I find they yell less when this is true.

23) I subscribe to THE ATLANTIC, HARPER'S, the digital versions of DUNGEON and DRAGON magazines, PYRAMID, REASON, THE NATION, THE NATIONAL REVIEW, and LOS ANGELES magazine. I usually pick up F1 at the news stand since it isn't any cheaper when subscribed to and it is always months behind schedule, it is shipped from Britain, either way.

24) I blog at http://cinerati.blogspot.com, podcast at http://www.blogtalkradio.com/geekerati, and my favorite daily blog reading indulgence is LA Observed http://www.laobserved.com/.

25) I love Los Angeles. It may well be my favorite city. San Francisco is great, Chicago is awesome, Montreal amazed me. But when I visited New York City and found that I had a proper West Coast disdain for "The City" (a term which always means San Francisco to me -- even though I am using it to describe NYC here), I knew I was a real Angeleno. Los Angeles is like a geode. People know it contains "sparkling riches," so they come here. Then they discover it is a pockmarked urban sprawl that doesn't look like the Oz they thought they were visiting. But after a while, you crack the city open and find a wondrous history and hidden treasures everywhere. New York tells you where to go to have a good time, Los Angeles challenges you to use your detective skills to find your joy. Whether that joy is mountain hikes, surfing, or looking around for landmarks from James Cain novels. I lived in the Baldwin Village (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baldwin_Village,_Los_Angeles,_California) part of Crenshaw (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crenshaw,_California) before moving to Glendale (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glendale,_California).

13: The Fear May Not Be Real, But the Laughter Certainly Is

Cinerati may not be the biggest proponent of reality television shows. We only watch "American Idol" during the auditions -- you know, when the show is entertaining. We only watch "So You Think You Can Dance" after the auditions when the real competition begins.

That may seem inconsistent, but the reality is that the finalists on Idol are all talented and Cinerati WILL have plenty of chances to hear the artist sing in the future. This is only half true for "So You Think You Can Dance." The dancers are all extremely talented after the audition stage, but one doesn't get many opportunities to watch elegant dancers -- so we take our dancing pleasures when we can get them.

Cinerati is also a big fan of "The Real Housewives" series of shows. We don't care if it's Orange County, New York, or Atlanta. Those mean women, not you Jeana -- you are a sweetheart --, but most of the other women are amazingly petty caricatures that Cinerati cannot resist watching.

We can now add one more show to our strange list of preferred reality TV, "13: The Fear is Real." Let me assure you, that if the fear is real, it is only real for the contestants. There is nothing scary about watching the show, except for how scary ridiculous the contestants are. The show currently airs on Friday nights at 9pm, which puts in in competition with "Monk" and means that it goes straight to DVR while Cinerati watches more thoughtful fare. But once that more thoughtful fare is over, we run straight for the DVR menu to see what shenanigans the producers of 13 have in store for the contestants.

What is "13: The Fear is Real" you ask? It is a high concept reality show that asks the essential question, "what if we made a reality show that simulates a horror movie." Instead of contestants getting voted off every week, one contestant is killed off by the "mastermind of terror." Like "Top Chef," there are two stages of each episode. First there is a small group activity that sets the stage for which contestants will have to attempt to survive that episodes "death ritual," a contest that simulates some murder from the horror films we all know and love. Anything from being buried alive to being burned at the stake can be the "death" highlighted in the final ritual. Of the two contestants who participate in this ritual, only one returns to the group. At the end of the show, one contestant goes home with $66,666.00. Not a lot, we know, but it is the CW.

Added to the natural selective process of the show's contests is a twist. Early in the show, one of the contestants acquired a "murder box" when the others weren't looking and became the mastermind's accomplice in crime. This "wolf among the sheep" will have the opportunity to use the box to kill, one at a time, up to three other competitors. So not only do the contestants have to worry about the mastermind, they have to worry about each other.

And worry they do. They are constantly talking about how "afraid" they are. If one were to design a drinking game where you had to drink every time a contestant said they were afraid, you would die by the end of the first 10 minutes. These people are crazy scared -- of some pretty mundane stuff. The casting directors did a great job of picking some of the most paranoid, phobic, and superstitious competitors possible.

Cinerati's favorite episode was when the murder box was first acquired by the -- yet to be revealed -- killer. One of the contestants was certain he knew who the killer was and wanted to "out" the killer. By the structure of the episode, the tension this contestant was causing threw them for a bit of a loop. But instead of letting the contestant sidetrack the show, they decided to seize the opportunity and make accusations a part of the game. The contestant was informed that if he wanted to publicly accuse someone he could, but two things would be required. First, he'd have to get everyone to agree that the person was the killer. Second, if he was incorrect he would have to participate in the death ritual that night. He was wrong and had to participate. What leads one to believe that this was an on the spot decision by the crew was that it is the only time that 3 people have taken part in the ritual. I thought it was a brilliant adaptation to the changing circumstances that the players can create and it has been great fun watching the paranoia build on the show since that episode.

So far, the killer has eliminated only one of the other contestants, but the choice could not have been better. You see, in the first episode one of the contestants acquired the box, but was too stressed out by the responsibility and returned the box to the location it was originally placed. She was the first victim of the killer. That's what Cinerati calls good TV.

The show isn't scary. The production values are laughable at times. But the contestants are an absolute riot, and the contests are often very creative -- especially the final rituals. Cinerati recommends this show to anyone who doesn't take their reality TV too seriously and would like to thank Ghost House productions, that's you Sam Raimi, for this excellent diversion. Once you realize the show isn't about the viewing audience being afraid, rather about watching how the contestants deal with fear, then you can sit back and enjoy the show.

IFC: Your Place for Comedic Nazi Zombie Horror

According to Anne Thompson of Variety, IFC has acquired the North American distribution rights to the Norwegian horror/comedy film DEAD SNOW. The movie is a high-concept extravaganza sure to make any fan of Sam Raimi's EVIL DEAD series of films, or people who play the Savage Worlds role playing game, very happy. It's got zombies, Norwegian co-eds, creepy old men in cabins, Nazi gold, Nazis, snowmobiles, oh...and the zombies are the Nazis. It makes my heart feel warm knowing that IFC does in fact embrace all kinds of "independent film."

Watching the trailer one can see definite Raimi influences, but the brightness of all the snow does make take away from some of the creepy mood factor that made the EVIL DEAD series so fun. Watch the You Tube trailer below, or -- for a better image visit the DEAD SNOW link above.

Hat Tip: Anne Thompson