Thursday, September 11, 2008

Board Game Review: ESCAPE FROM NEW YORK

1982 may well be the "Best Geek Movie Year Ever," but 1981 was certainly the year I truly fell in love with movies. In fact, it may deserve consideration as the "Best Geek Movie Year Ever," and further consideration along those lines will have to be forthcoming. The central question of any such analysis is the following, "Is STAR TREK II: THE WRATH OF KHAN sufficiently great as a geek movie to displace the following: SCANNERS, THE HOWLING, NIGHTHAWKS, THE HAND, OUTLAND, DRAGONSLAYER, RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK, CLASH OF THE TITANS, HEAVY METAL, AN AMERICAN WEREWOLF IN LONDON, ENTER THE NINJA, HALLOWEEN II, TIME BANDITS, GHOST STORY, the American release of INGLORIOUS BASTARDS, and not least of all ESCAPE FROM NEW YORK?" That's a pretty significant list to overcome, and it doesn't include the fact that THE EVIL DEAD was premiered in Detroit on October 15th of 1981 (it wasn't officially released until 1983). Nor does it include the fact that 1981 is also the year a number of my other favorite films were released, including: EXCALIBUR, FORT APACHE THE BRONX, THE DOGS OF WAR, THIEF, NIGHTHAWKS, STRIPES, SOUTHERN COMFORT, GALLIPOLI, THE FOX AND THE HOUND, and TAPS.

Most of these movies will pull the strings of anyone who is willing to give into their Primal Screen, and quite a few stand the test of time as "plain old" excellent movies or have like THE FOX AND THE HOUND been the fertile soil that many talented film makers grew from. 1981 was a great year to fall in love with movie theaters, and a cheap $1.00 theater in Sparks, NV that didn't care when a 10 year-old was buying a ticket to see EXCALIBUR was a great place for a life time love affair to begin. It was also a great year to become a John Carpenter fan, while 1996 was a good year to ask oneself "Why do I like John Carpenter again?." Those moments of doubt, which usually come after watching ESCAPE FROM L.A., are usually best cured by ESCAPE FROM NEW YORK. Both feature similar casts and similar stories, but ESCAPE FROM NEW YORK presents its subject matter as an actual possibility while ESCAPE FROM L.A. treats its subject as a joke.

ESCAPE FROM NEW YORK cost around $6 million to make, and raked in approximately $25.2 million in the box office. But in a year where the average movie ticket price was $2.78 (compared to today's $7.08), that's the equivalent of about $65 million today for a $14.5 million cost. Given the film's relative popularity, especially among "geek" audiences, it is no surprise that TSR (at that time a growing gaming company in the United States and the creators of Dungeons and Dragons) would take the plunge and acquire a license to produce a board game based on the film. TSR eventually manufactured a roleplaying game based on the INDIANA JONES franchise.

Gamers have had a long history of railing against licensed games, particularly games based upon a film property. From E.T. for the Atari 2600 to the poorly implemented DR. WHO roleplaying game by FASA, every gamer has his nightmare licensed game story. While it is true that gamers have been the victims of many a bad licensed product, they have also been blessed with some excellent games based on licenses. From West End Games' STAR WARS roleplaying game to the various CONAN based table top roleplaying games, gamers haven't always suffered when a license was involved.

So where does THE ESCAPE FROM NEW YORK board game fall in the spectrum of license based games?



The first thing that strikes a potential player of the game is the sub-par graphic on the box cover (above). One appreciates that TSR did more than simply reuse imagery from the press kit when designing the cover, but the cover doesn't really do much to invite game play. The palette of colors selected is uninspiring and the accuracy of the anatomy of the characters portrayed on the cover leaves something to be desired. If one where to merely judge a game by its cover, the verdict would no be a friendly one to the ESCAPE FROM NEW YORK board game. That said, production values of most games were often low at the time, especially when the game wasn't being produced by one of the major board game manufacturers like Milton Bradley or Parker Brothers.

Looking inside the rulebook one finds the graphics of the product increasing with Erol Otis presenting his version of the Crazies. Otis' work is always a little weird, but his stylings work well for these horrific sewer dwellers -- adding a layer of the almost supernatural.



Complementing the bizarre is a workmanlike illustration by Bill Willingham. Willingham, like Otis, is a fan favorite artist for those D&D players who cut their teeth on the legendary "red box" edition of the game, but Willingham's work here is merely serviceable. It provides a semblance of the tone the game should hope to convey in it's play, and its representation of perspective doesn't push the viewer out of the illustration, but one sees little of Willingham's sizable talent in this piece. One can witness the development of his talent in his 1984 series THE ELEMENTALS.




Graphic presentation is an important component of game presentation, but it is only one factor of game design and often has little to no influence over game play. One receives few if any hints as to actual game play from the art on a box cover or within the rule book. The same cannot be said of the game board itself. While the art on a game board may, or may not, influence the actual mechanics of game play, staring at an image for an hour or so can affect whether you are willing to reopen a game and revisit the content. Good rules, and play, can overcome a bad board, but game board design should be a central consideration for board game design. The board doesn't have to be anything flashy, but it should be presentable. When it comes to illustration, presentable is what ESCAPE FROM NEW YORK offers, but it is the game design elements that begin to hint that this game might be bringing more to the table than the merely passable graphics would have hinted. Notice that there are areas of different colors on the game map. The isle of Manhattan has been divided into areas of different colors. Sometimes such differences are only for show, but in the case of ESCAPE these elements signify how the areas affect gameplay.

Map of New York City



ESCAPE FROM NEW YORK falls into the category of "Adventure Board Game." More specifically, it falls into the category of "Early Adventure Board Game." These are games that fall somewhere between traditional track movement board games like CHUTES AND LADDERS and more complex table top gaming like Avalon Hill's BLITZKRIEG. Adventure board games combine traditional board gaming elements with wargame concepts and overlay an additional role playing component. The first of these games is, arguably, TSR's DUNGEON board game. Like a track movement game, adventure board games tend to use some form of randomization for movement on a map. Like traditional wargames, players can specifically target the opponents pieces and attack them. Unlike either of the above, adventure board games players also have encounters with non-player obstacles which must be individually overcome as distinct narrative elements. In other words, the game attacks the player's pieces, or provides narrative moments, which the players must overcome and interact with in order to complete the game. Additionally, players of an adventure board game take on the "role" of the character their piece represents. In the case of DUNGEON, the players take on the roles of fighters, wizards, and elves exploring a dungeon in the quest for gold. In the case of ESCAPE FROM NEW YORK, the players all take on the role of Snake Plisskin -- with only one player representing the "real Snake." That player being the one who finishes the game.

The goal of each player in the game is the same as Snake's mission in the movie. The players are all attempting to find the President and get him off of the criminal infested prison island of Manhattan. Failing that, they are to bring the tape the President was carrying. Failing that...you die, they die, everybody dies.

To find either the President or the Tape, the players must acquire clue cards which contain information as to the possible location of one or the other. They do this my moving around the isle of Manhattan to the various orange colored locations -- places like the Lincoln Center. Movement is determined by two factors. First, the role of two die determines how many "movement points" the player has this turn. Second, each space costs a different number of movement points to pass through. Red spaces, which likely signify dangerous areas where one must move slowly, cost 3 points of movement. Orange spaces, which signify places where one can find clues and/or the President/Tape, cost two spaces of movement. Green and White spaces, which are relatively safe areas, cost only one space of movement to pass through.

If the player ends their turn in an orange location, they find a clue. If they find enough clues, they can find the President or Tape at a location. Regardless of the color of location the character lands upon, and before any clues can be discovered, the player must draw an encounter card, like the Romero card below.



Encounter cards contain information about the areas where the encounter must be engaged. Romero must be engaged no matter which location you are on, but the Cabbie card is only encountered in Orange, White, and Green locations. If you are not on a space where the encounter can happen, you do not encounter that card and can move on about your business of finding the President or Tape. Sometimes it's good to miss encounters, and sometimes it's not so good.



Players don't tend to want to encounter Romero, but they do tend to desire a chat with Cabbie. This brings us to the next component of game play. Once a player has determined that he must engage with an encounter, that player has three options (listed on both the Romero and Cabbie cards). The player can try to avoid the encounter, befriend the encounter, or enter combat with the encounter. If the player succeeds at avoiding the encounter, nothing more happens. If they befriend the encounter, they get to keep the card and use any benefits conferred. If they fail at either of these tasks, they must fight the card but the fight will be more difficult than if they merely chose to fight in the first place. All of these tasks are resolved by rolling a single die and adding any modifiers for weapons and allies. If you lose a combat, you loose a card in your hand. If you have no cards in your hand...you're dead.

Gameplay is simple and fast paced. Figuring out how and where to move is the most complex task of gameplay and adds some interesting strategic decisions. Do you know where the President is, but want to mislead the other players before you grab him and make a run for it? Okay, but you might meet up with Romero or The Duke who are very difficult encounters. Do you risk red areas after you have the President in order to take a more direct route out of New York? Did you roll enough movement points to enter an orange space, and thus be able to attain a clue?

I was surprised at how deep the game play was on this simple adventure board game. More recent games in the genre are more complex and have better graphic representation, but this game is surprisingly fun. It maintains the tone and feel of the subject it is based on, while still being a playable game. It's rare enough that one finds that to be true in licensed games, that one should treasure the moments when one finds a game that accomplishes that small task.

RATING: B- Playable and fun, but not a spectacular addition to a game collection. If you like the movie, and can find the game for under $15.00, snap it up.

Thursday, September 04, 2008

Sporadic Geek Update (9/4/08)

Here's some geek news for today.

  • Stacey Chancellor, over at the excellent Flames Rising website, gives her review of the most recent Terry Brooks Shannara Novel -- The Gypsy Morph (The Genesis of Shannara, Book 3). The book is the third in a trilogy that connects Brooks' modern day Knights of the Word series with his original Shannara trilogy. Prior to this trilogy, I had been trying for years to convince some of my friends that the Shannara books were "post-apocalyptic" fiction that took place in our world. Most of my friends agreed and understood. For others though, it didn't matter how many times I pointed out that the characters fight a robotic dinosaur on the streets of what appears to be a crumbled Seattle, they thought I was crazy. It's been nice reading Brooks' latest trilogy and, based on Chancellor's review, I cannot wait to read The Gypsy Morph (The Genesis of Shannara, Book 3). Even if it seems that Chancellor is admittedly affected by her "Primal Screen" when reading Brooks fiction.



  • Kathryn Bigelow, the director of one of my favorite vampire movies Near Dark, has directed THE HURT LOCKER. The film is an actioner that portrays the lives of an elite Explosive Ordinance Disposal team stationed in Iraq. The film screened at the Venice film festival and seeks to capture the, largely untapped, audience of Americans willing to watch movies set in Iraq. I am a fan of Bigelow's -- I even love Point Break (Pure Adrenaline Edition), but K-19 not so much -- as well as a fan of the recent HBO series GENERATION KILL. Like KILL, the Bigelow movie is based on the experiences of an embedded journalist. All of which means that I will likely watch this film when/if it is released in theaters, regardless of Derek Elley of Variety's lukewarm review. The film may not be political enough for Elley, but it's apparent focus on "war as a drug" and the effect that violence has on its participants has me pretty interested.




  • According to Variety, Columbia has tagged "The Office" co-executive producers Lee Eisenberg and Gene Stupnitsky to write a script for a new GHOSTBUSTERS movie featuring the original characters.



    "The Office" is one of my favorite shows, and I'm sure that the co-executive producers will do a bang up job on the screenplay. But there is a little corner of my mind that wants Greg Costikyan to get a shot at a draft. Costikyan is the famous, at least in Grognard gaming circles, creator of the games THE CREATURE THAT ATE SHEBOYGAN, BUG EYED MONSTERS, and TOON. Or maybe Bill Slavicek who wrote some of the funniest adventures for the GHOSTBUSTERS roleplaying game in the '90s.

Wednesday, September 03, 2008

It's a Sad Day Charlie Brown -- Remembering Peanuts Animator Bill Melendez

Before I continue, I'd like everyone to take a moment of silence to reflect on how Bill Melendez affected your childhood. Melendez, who died on Tuesday at St. Johns Hospital in Santa Monica at the age of 91, was the "official" animator for the Peanuts movie specials in addition to working on the animated version of "The Lion, The Witch, and The Wardrobe." He worked on a number of other projects, to be sure, but those properties are the ones that had the greatest affect on me as I was growing up.

Here's one way that he affected me.

A BOY NAMED CHARLIE BROWN (1969), which Variety erroneously -- at least according to IMDB -- attributes to 1971, was one of my favorite movies growing up. It was also the story that made me most desire typical "Hollywood Endings," both in life and in film/tv. I hated that Charlie Brown lost the spelling bee. I was even more appalled that his loss was related to the thing he loved most in the world -- his pet beagle. You see, his misspells beagle at the climax of the story. I was heartbroken as a child, and I'm still heartbroken. I know that Charlie Brown, who is representative of the everyman, rarely gets to win in the Peanuts-verse, but I have always seen that as a kind of injustice. I want everyone to succeed in life.

Sure, I know that not everyone can become a successful actor, author, director, rock star, or statesman. That isn't what I am talking about. I am referring to the little successes that allow us to marvel at the world in which we live, the most important of which is a loving family that is free from tragedy. This is the stuff that dreams are made of. I want this for everyone. To further illustrate how the Charlie Brown film reinforced this desire, consider for a moment the role of Charlie's parents at the end of the film -- the lack thereof. Where is the loving embrace of a mother, or father, to console Charlie at the end of the story? Lost in "wah wah wah wah wah" land, no where to be seen by the audience. Charlie certainly has friends, Linus and Snoopy in particular, but what of family?

The Charlie Brown films made me long for a happy and loving family -- though like Charlie my experience was mixed. Certainly, my family loved me and let it be known. In fact, I had many a consolation hug after a tragic defeat. But my family life wasn't free of tragedy. In my late teens and throughout my twenties, I watched my mother as she struggled through addiction. More accurately, I watched as she slowly died from addiction. My younger sister, who lived at home with my mother, witnessed it more than I. It was a terrible struggle to which she eventually succumbed, more on that will be written on October 7th. But one moment comes to mind as I reflect on the absence of Charlie's parents after Charlie's loss, it is a memory of my mom in recovery -- in treatment at a center somewhere near Lake Tahoe.

My mom's parents, my grandparents, were still reeling from the hurt of having a daughter addicted to heroin and were looking for ways to cope. They latched on to the concept of "tough love," an important concept to keep in mind when one is an enabler which my grandparents weren't, seeking some magic trick to snap my mom out of the addictive cycle. They seemed to think that if they were "tough" that would help my mom, they focused on that more than the outward expression of love. I am certain they did what they did exactly because they loved their daughter, but their focus on one aspect of being a family in recovery prevented them from being ready for the likely inevitable "relapses" my mom would cycle through. That is, she would cycle through them if she was lucky enough to survive addiction. Sadly, my mom wasn't and I think that my grandparents regretted that they didn't spend more time giving comforting embraces to my mom and less time worrying about whether they were being tough enough.

I know I certainly felt that way. How many times have I asked myself whether I let my mom know how much, and how unconditionally, I loved her? Too many, and I have not always been satisfied with the answer.

What does this have to do with Peanuts? Well, in many ways my mom was Charlie Brown. She was "trying to kick the football" in life, only to have it frequently pulled away at the last second. This often happened as she attempted to advance her career. Unlike Charlie Brown, she had no Linus to offer "timeless truths." Her family was more present, and listened more than Charlie's, but her friends' consolation which she sought more often than the embrace of her children was rarely wise advice -- rather it was usually a detrimental escape.

Before this piece becomes too maudlin and makes it seem that Mr. Schulz creation was merely a catalyst that made me desire happy family life -- as well as appreciate the family I have, I should mention that Peanuts has also been a part of someone I dearly love's ongoing journey to success. My wife Jody is a winner of the 1996 prestigious Charles M. Schulz award for her college cartooning. It was winning this award that let Jody know that her dreams of entertaining people were possible. Not to sound too prideful -- I was able to be her Linus after she didn't win in 1992, a year so "bad" in the judges' mind that no one was awarded the prize. I told her that this only made the prize more legitimate and I let her know how convinced I was that she would eventually win the prize. She continued developing her craft and won the prize four years later when she thought her comic had improved enough. Jody is, if anything, her harshest critic.

Interesting Media Bits -- A Sporadic Geek Update

  • Brian Lowry shares some interesting observations regarding television today and television in 1993. It's amazing how much, and how little, has changed in the offerings available.


  • LA Observed shares what the Los Angeles Times consider to be the best "LA Movies" that were made between two extraordinarily arbitrary dates. LA STORY is at #20, which is too low. THE BIG LEBOWSKI is at #10, which seems about right. DAY OF THE LOCUST (1975) is nowhere to be seen, which is two words -- first begins with a c, second ends with a k -- "crazy talk," but is excluded due to the strange "Best 25 in the past 25 years" rule, which enables them to leave out an abundance of other great movies.


  • Stephen Sommers is slated to helm a new Tarzan movie. Had you asked me after the first MUMMY movie he made, I would have been unreservedly overjoyed. He maintained the proper balance of humor and pulp excitement necessary to pull off that film. After MUMMY II, I would have been more hesitant. In the years after VAN HELSING, that is to say NOW, I am actually a little worried. His live action JUNGLE BOOK was pretty good and his upcoming GI JOE movie might redeem all past misdeeds, or magnify them. It's a Tarzan movie, and I'm a big fan of Burroughs, so it is a must see. Though in my heart of hearts, I think it is unlikely to pass GREYSTOKE and the Disney animated TARZAN as a translation of the character and stories, but we'll see.

    Speaking of being a Burroughs fan. There is a meme going around the internets that Tarzan was named after Tarzana (which isn't true) as opposed to Tarzana Ranch -- which became Tarzana -- being named after Tarzan (which is true). Most of the misunderstanding is rooted in a spoof Snopes article from their "Lost Legends" section of the website, the urban legend site "All-Lies" falls for the gag. Most people read the article and say, "Aha, I knew that no one would name a town after Tarzan!" But they fail to follow links to this page "The Repository of Lost Legends" (TRoLL for short), where they let you know they were kidding. Or they could look at this well researched ERBzine page, where Burroughs obsessives live, and find the story of Tarzana. One could even go to the Tarzana Chamber of Commerce page where they discuss the topic. Sadly, too many people want to be "smarter than the obvious" and think that Tarzana being named after Tarzan is a myth.

    It isn't, the town was named after a fictional character. The internet can be wrong folks. Go read the Irwin Porges biography of Burroughs, then come back to me.


  • Jerry Bruckheimer, Randall Wallace, and Steven Pressfield to make "Killing Rommel," based on Pressfield's novel of the same name. I have been a fan of Pressfield's since I first read his novel "Gates of Fire" years ago. I look forward to seeing a Bruckheimerstravaganza WWII movie based on one of Pressfield's books.

Tuesday, September 02, 2008

Why Copyright Theft is Bad

Look, I know as well as anyone that "free is easier than paying." Given the power of the internet, "free is often better than buying." If I want to buy something, I usually have to either leave the house or wait for product delivery. The rare exception to this is ebooks, but if I buy them I still have to pay for them and as I wrote earlier "free is easier than paying."

But you also know what getting all your stuff for free means? It means that people will stop making the stuff that entertains you. If there is no money to be made, then people will stop working hard to produce things that entertain you. Case in point? Stephanie Meyer. Somebody leaked part of an early draft of her next book, and she's postponed indefinitely the writing of that installment.

It's hard work to write something worth reading and that work can be devoted to other profitable ventures. Those who have the talent, and discipline, to be creative in an entertainment field are also fully capable of making money other ways, and they will migrate away.

Don't tell me that "advertising" will eventually pay for all this great free stuff, and perpetuate the myth of the "economy of free." Sure, a lot of stuff we are currently paying for -- maybe even Meyer's books -- will be free due to ads, but at some point there has to be a purchased product to pay for the advertising that supports the "economy of free." It's economics 101. Heck, it's even more basic than that. Rousseau understood this when he wrote ON THE ORIGIN OF INEQUALITY. If you want people to create entertainment, then they need time and resources to be able to make that entertainment. If you want talented people, then the compensation has to be commensurate.

Go ahead and disagree, but don't come crying to me when all that is available to entertain you are mmorpgs, porn made in someone's basement, and Kirk/Picard slash fiction.

In A World...without "Voiceover Guy"

According to Variety, Don LaFontaine died on Monday. The official cause of death has not yet been released.

I cannot recall how many movies this man convinced me to see with his trademark "In a world..." tagline. Part of me knows that "In a world without Don LaFontaine, future voiceover guys will seem like pale imitations."

Help Save Superman!


On June 14th, 1938, seventy years before the virus quarantine goes into effect in the alternate future of Season 2 of Heroes, the LOS ANGELES TIMES front page was covering a trial that resulted in a guilty verdict for Police Capt. Earle Kynette with regard to the Harry Raymond bombing. It is also the date that some claim as the publication date for Action Comics #1.

Recent legal battles have revealed the "actual" publication date as April 18th, 1938, on which date the LOS ANGELES TIMES covered "the lawsuit brought by former child star Jackie Coogan against his mother and stepfather over the money he made as a youngster" -- a lawsuit with long term repercussions in the entertainment industry and a better starting point for the following commentary. You see, I'm one of those crazy people who believes that people should actually be paid for the things they create.

Like Jackie Coogan, the creators of Superman -- and their heirs -- had to wait a long time to receive copyrights to the contents of Action Comics #1 (unless you don't consider 70 years to be a long time). As everyone knows, Action Comics #1 is possibly the most important superhero comic book ever published. The book itself has an Overstreet value, in Very Fine condition, of $275,000 and which sold recently at auction in Very Fine minus condition for $69,000 (according to Heritage Auction Galleries). For decades Superman's creators, and their heirs, have been cheated by a claim that the comic was "work for hire" and thus the creators had sold their rights. In case you're wondering, while I am a "copyright stickler" I am not a fan of work for hire. I believe in creator ownership and limited rights for publishers.

Yet this injustice has been largely ignored by most, with the exception of hard core Superman fans. But then popular culture, and even hard core fans, tend to neglect those who entertain us as soon as those people move from the limelight -- even as their creations remain in the limelight. Who waits in Jerry Robinson's line at San Diego's famous Comic Con? Far fewer than the number of fans attending the conference who are fans of his collaborated creations -- Robin and the Joker. Americans -- even when they are die hard fans -- it seems, have no sense of history.

How else can one explain the fate of Joe Shuster's childhood home which was demolished in 1978, the same year that Richard Donner's SUPERMAN movie was released in movie theaters across the world. In a way that sentence describes the American attitude toward history. We had a "new" Superman, why do we need to remember or preserve historic locations associated with the old?

Thankfully, we Americans aren't always so fickle. Project Pride bought and restored the home of quintessential pulp author Robert E. Howard, and now author Brad Meltzer is working toward doing something similar with the childhood home of Jerry Siegel. It seems that exterior repairs of the site will cost around $50,000. Given my personal desire to make pilgrimages to the homes, childhood or otherwise, of the people who have entertained me, it shouldn't be surprising that I am so excited by Mr. Meltzer's efforts.

I only find it to be a shame that Meltzer has to have an auction at his website -- ordinarypeoplechangetheworld.com -- and that we couldn't just come together as a community without some material incentive.

To put it another way. I would rather someone invest $50,000 into a project that might be shared by thousands (hopefully more) of fans for years to come, than for someone to spend $275,000 for something that will remain encased in plastic locked away in someone's safe deposit box.