It is a maxim that every Game Master is a game designer to one degree or another.
It is also a maxim that every Game Master believes that he or she is a good enough designer to make a living making games and supplements.
The hard truth is that not every Game Master has what it takes to make a great gaming product, even when he or she is a wonderful Game Master. Additionally, there are some very talented designers out there in the gaming community who lack the confidence and experience to properly sell themselves to game companies who could use their talents. Sadly, there is a dearth of really great resources for advice for the aspiring game designer.
Okay, I hear you disagreeing already. There are a few tomes on Game Design Theory that reference bizarre sounding names like Huizinga and DeKoven. There are also hundreds of books covering Game Design for computer games. Then there are the "how to work for company x" panels at conventions and the recent Mongoose product "I am Mongoose and So Can You."
But even with all these resources, there is still a dearth really great resources for advice for the aspiring game designer...on how to acquire a career in the gaming industry. Truth be told, when you look at how many of today's giants in the gaming field became game designers there are a seemingly endless variety of paths to becoming a game designer -- and little guidance. Do I work in the warehouse shipping out games like Greg Costikyan did? Do I send my game setting in as a submission to a major company? Do I submit articles to their online/print magazine? Do I write some of the most rigorously researched campaign compilation material ever imagined for free consumption on the internet?
There are a hundred different stories to tell, each is different and none are really helpful to the mildly socially awkward individual that is your average gamer.
What is the best way to get that foot in the door and start building a professional relationship with a company you might want to work with? One answer, though certainly not THE answer, is to use the convention circuit as a "job interview" resource. It can be a daunting prospect and one that might make you nervous, but if you talk to most gaming professionals they will let you know that many business decisions are made at conventions or based on convention experiences.
This is where Jess Hartley's "GenCon for the Aspiring Professional" comes in handy. This sixteen page document provides a veritable crash course on "pitching" behavior at conventions, and its information can easily be applied to other situations. The document is a nice step by step guide of things to consider, things to bring, things to say, and things not to say. It must reading for anyone who wants to work in the gaming industry.
Jess knows what of she writes too. She is a veteran game designer who has worked on a number of wonderful products. She has worked on game related fiction -- including Buried Tales of Pinebox, Texas (as a Savage Worlds fan any one who writes for the Pinebox setting gets bonus esteem points in my patented gaming professional esteem-o-meter 2500). Additionally, she has been a central author in White Wolf Games new generation line of World of Darkness products and their exciting Scion game line. She is also one of the contributors to Green Ronin's upcoming Family Games: The 100 Best.
If you're interested in working in the games industry, check out Jess's pamphlet. You might also want to check out her excellent website which features a fun advice column entitled "One Geek to Another."
My only complaint about the website is that the "heading banner" doesn't have an embedded link to the home page. The link is on the side banner, but I like clicking on the header.
Wednesday, August 26, 2009
Friday, August 21, 2009
Hulu Recommendation Friday: Full Metal Alchemist (Brotherhood)
A couple of years ago, my wife and I were captivated once a week by a wonderful anime series called Full Metal Alchemist. The show follows the adventures of two brothers as they attempt to learn the secret of the Philosopher's Stone in the hopes that they can reverse the "price" they paid when they attempted to resurrect their mother using the power of Alchemy. The show wonderfully captured the horror trope hightlighted in classic horror tales like Frankenstein and Faust. No power comes without a price, and the brothers paid a high price indeed. As an added bonus the characters are named Edward and Alphonse Elric. How can I not love a show where two of the characters are named ELRIC?!
The cartoon was a hit, but it also varied wildly from the manga on which it was based. The series had an ending that was nowhere to be seen in the manga, which continues to this day, and which left one feeling mildly disappointed. There was much of the world left to explore and Jody and I felt a little bit robbed by the ending.
Thankfully, the animation studio Bones, has contracted to do a reboot of the series and the show is a part of the hulu streaming video stable. The episodes become available two weeks after they air in Japan and are a new start for the series. Old fans will find much that is familiar, but the new series is closer to the manga and goes into greater depth into many of the secondary characters.
As always...CLICK PLAY...then CLICK ON FULL SCREEN...the ENJOY.
Thursday, August 20, 2009
The Wolf Man (2010): The Signs Seem to Hint at a Classic Movie Renaissance
When it comes to iconic horror characters, Universal has the catalog to beat all catalogs. The classic Universal monsters include The Mummy, Dracula, The Wolfman, Frankenstein, and The Creature from the Black Lagoon -- classics all. Each of these monsters touches at a different "fear button" deep within the human psyche. For many, it is Dracula -- with his vampiric combination of death and sex -- who resonates most deeply and draws viewers and readers to peer into the abyss that can await.
For me, it has always been Lawrence Talbot -- the Wolf Man -- who seemed to both capture my empathy and fear. In the classic Universal film, gentle Lawrence Talbot acquires the curse of lycanthropy and nearly destroys all that he holds dear. The Wolf Man is a wonderful deconstruction of the typical hero narrative. While I am often critical of narratives that deconstruct the hero, I am quite fond of this particular deconstruction. A part of the reason for my fondness is that this particular deconstruction ends in tragedy -- when the hero through the act of heroism becomes a force of terror tragedy should result. It is when a hero becomes a force of terror and is narratively rewarded that I find myself often annoyed. Talbot is an extremely sympathetic man. He has a virtuous heroic streak and has found someone who may be the love of his life, yet it is his actions that will doom his happiness -- actions that were noble and not vicious. This is where the horror of the Wolf Man lies, it lies in the fact that we might destroy the things we love even without action ignobly -- or at least without initially acting ignobly.
It is a timeless and classic tale, as are the tales of all the Universal monster catalog. Yet, it is not a tale that is always captured well. The original Wolf Man (1941) with Lon Chaney was a delight (itself a descendant of Werewolf of London), as were the Hammer Curse of the Werewolf with Oliver Reed as the cursed man and John Landis' 1981 An American Werewolf in London. Each pulled the right heartstrings. There have been historic "campy" tellings of the of the tale as well -- in fact most of the Universal monsters have become fodder for parody throughout the years.
By the late 80s, the "Universal Monsters" had pretty much become "universal monsters." The creatures, and their look-a-likes, could be found everywhere in popular culture. So it was no surprise that Universal Pictures claimed the right to redefine these classic characters for themselves in the early 90s. It's no surprise, but it largely lead to disappointing films that lacked the heart of the originals.
Bram Stoker's Dracula (1992) by Francis Ford Coppola lacked visual appeal, had terrible costumes and makeup, and included mediocre performances by talented actors. The film, which was the film my wife and I saw on our first date, was lackluster and an unworthy descendant of the Bela Lugosi film. Frank Langella was a more haunting Dracula in the 1979 film than Gary Oldman. Coppola's venture into the Universal Monster was a misfire that lacked heart.
Wolf -- full film at link -- (1994) starringJack Nicholas Jack Nicholson (I blame my recent viewing of Back Nine at Cherry Hills for the error, but it's pretty unforgivable.) seemed more a Mike Nichols film than a true werewolf tale. It tried to hard to be topical and not enough time exploring the psychological aspects of the deconstructive narrative. James Spader plays the same character he played in Baby Boom (1987) -- with a bit of a twist. The film entertains as an allegory for how the business world can corrupt and consume, but it fails as a "horror" movie.
It wasn't until 1999 with the release of Stephen Sommers' take on The Mummy that Universal had a new "Universal Monster" movie that both captured the magic of the original and added a magic of its own. Brendan Fraser was such a compelling pulp hero, as Rick O'Connell, that it became easy to envision Fraser as the titular star of a Doc Savage film. Arnold Vosloo was a compelling Mummy with a compelling story -- audiences both loved and hated him. The film worked as blockbuster and as Mummy movie.
Sadly, Universal made audiences sit through The Mummy Returns and handed Sommers the reigns to Van Helsing -- more than balancing the 1999 gem with subsequent drivel. The Scorpion King "prequel" to The Mummy Returns was fun, and Sommers showed with GI JOE that he still knows how to have fun without needing to use Frankenstein as the circuit breaker for Dracula's electrical/mechanical Uterus (yes...that's the plot of Van Helsing).
Looking at the newly release trailer for 2010's The Wolf Man starring Benecio Del Toro as Talbot, it appears as if Universal has found the right director in Joe Johnston. Johnston has an extensive filmography that includes Hidalgo, October Sky, The Rocketeer, and the upcoming The First Avenger: Captain America. The inclusion of the talented and beautiful Emily Blunt as the romantic interest is a good choice. Blunt was one of the three bright spots in 2006's The Devil Wears Prada, the other being Meryl Streep and Stanley Tucci. The inclusion of Anthony Hopkins among the cast hints at a nice balance of drama, and Hugo Weaving adds some additional geek appeal.
If the trailer is any clue, then The Wolf Man will stand next to Sommers' The Mummy as a film that captures the old while adding new inspiration.
For me, it has always been Lawrence Talbot -- the Wolf Man -- who seemed to both capture my empathy and fear. In the classic Universal film, gentle Lawrence Talbot acquires the curse of lycanthropy and nearly destroys all that he holds dear. The Wolf Man is a wonderful deconstruction of the typical hero narrative. While I am often critical of narratives that deconstruct the hero, I am quite fond of this particular deconstruction. A part of the reason for my fondness is that this particular deconstruction ends in tragedy -- when the hero through the act of heroism becomes a force of terror tragedy should result. It is when a hero becomes a force of terror and is narratively rewarded that I find myself often annoyed. Talbot is an extremely sympathetic man. He has a virtuous heroic streak and has found someone who may be the love of his life, yet it is his actions that will doom his happiness -- actions that were noble and not vicious. This is where the horror of the Wolf Man lies, it lies in the fact that we might destroy the things we love even without action ignobly -- or at least without initially acting ignobly.
It is a timeless and classic tale, as are the tales of all the Universal monster catalog. Yet, it is not a tale that is always captured well. The original Wolf Man (1941) with Lon Chaney was a delight (itself a descendant of Werewolf of London), as were the Hammer Curse of the Werewolf with Oliver Reed as the cursed man and John Landis' 1981 An American Werewolf in London. Each pulled the right heartstrings. There have been historic "campy" tellings of the of the tale as well -- in fact most of the Universal monsters have become fodder for parody throughout the years.
By the late 80s, the "Universal Monsters" had pretty much become "universal monsters." The creatures, and their look-a-likes, could be found everywhere in popular culture. So it was no surprise that Universal Pictures claimed the right to redefine these classic characters for themselves in the early 90s. It's no surprise, but it largely lead to disappointing films that lacked the heart of the originals.
Bram Stoker's Dracula (1992) by Francis Ford Coppola lacked visual appeal, had terrible costumes and makeup, and included mediocre performances by talented actors. The film, which was the film my wife and I saw on our first date, was lackluster and an unworthy descendant of the Bela Lugosi film. Frank Langella was a more haunting Dracula in the 1979 film than Gary Oldman. Coppola's venture into the Universal Monster was a misfire that lacked heart.
Wolf -- full film at link -- (1994) starring
It wasn't until 1999 with the release of Stephen Sommers' take on The Mummy that Universal had a new "Universal Monster" movie that both captured the magic of the original and added a magic of its own. Brendan Fraser was such a compelling pulp hero, as Rick O'Connell, that it became easy to envision Fraser as the titular star of a Doc Savage film. Arnold Vosloo was a compelling Mummy with a compelling story -- audiences both loved and hated him. The film worked as blockbuster and as Mummy movie.
Sadly, Universal made audiences sit through The Mummy Returns and handed Sommers the reigns to Van Helsing -- more than balancing the 1999 gem with subsequent drivel. The Scorpion King "prequel" to The Mummy Returns was fun, and Sommers showed with GI JOE that he still knows how to have fun without needing to use Frankenstein as the circuit breaker for Dracula's electrical/mechanical Uterus (yes...that's the plot of Van Helsing).
Looking at the newly release trailer for 2010's The Wolf Man starring Benecio Del Toro as Talbot, it appears as if Universal has found the right director in Joe Johnston. Johnston has an extensive filmography that includes Hidalgo, October Sky, The Rocketeer, and the upcoming The First Avenger: Captain America. The inclusion of the talented and beautiful Emily Blunt as the romantic interest is a good choice. Blunt was one of the three bright spots in 2006's The Devil Wears Prada, the other being Meryl Streep and Stanley Tucci. The inclusion of Anthony Hopkins among the cast hints at a nice balance of drama, and Hugo Weaving adds some additional geek appeal.
If the trailer is any clue, then The Wolf Man will stand next to Sommers' The Mummy as a film that captures the old while adding new inspiration.
Wednesday, August 19, 2009
Fantasy Flight Games Publishing 3rd Edition of Warhammer Fantasy Roleplaying Game -- And You Thought 4th Edition D&D Was Controversial
In 1986, there were few games that could compete with Dungeons & Dragons for a share of the Fantasy themed role playing game marketplace. Other than a few successful (but niche) games like Runequest and Dragonquest, most Fantasy themed rpgs were pretty much D&D rip-offs. 1986 was the year that all changed. Steve Jackson released GURPS and Games Workshop -- a giant in the fantasy miniature wargaming field -- released Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay.
Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay (WFRP) had the subtitle "A Grim World of Perilous Adventure," which turned out to be something of a vast understatement. Where other games tried to compete with D&D by giving the characters played by gamers more powers in a familiar system, WFRP made the characters more human. In AD&D, there are points in character advancement (an rpg term describing how characters acquire new spells and combat efficiency as they gain "experience") when the threat of character death lessens. This is never the case in WFRP. D&D is a game of kicking down doors and killing orcs. WFRP was a game of giving a second thought to being anywhere near the door. "Can't we just get the city guard to go instead," is a phrase frequently uttered by WFRP characters. WFRP's mechanics helpt to create narrative tension by having high levels of character vulnerability.
Add to the narrative tension and easy to learn system based on, but very different from, the system used in the Warhammer Fantasy miniatures game and you had a game destined to find an audience. When looking at the 1st edition Warhammer Fantasy miniatures rules one could still see reflections of TSR's Chainmail miniatures game. In fact, were it not for knowing how to play Warhammer I probably still wouldn't understand how to play Chainmail. By the time those systems were extrapolated to create WFRP, there is almost no relation to any form of D&D. Where D&D was chart heavy and had little granularity when it came to the skills characters possessed as unique individuals (only Thieves have any skills worth mentioning in early D&D), WFRP had a task resolution system based directly on the capabilities of the characters and the skills they possessed.
WFRP was cutting edge game design at the time -- it includes design elements influenced by Traveller among other games -- and added some elements that still influence modern game design. Some WFRP skills can only be described as "proto-feats" given the way they influence play. WFRP was a breath of fresh air, but it didn't stay in the limelight long and seemed to wither for a while. Then in 1995, James Wallis' Hogshead Publishing re-released the game for a new audience and reprinted some of the more difficult to find books for those of us who loved the game but had lacked well stocked game stores in the 80s. It should be noted that one of Wallis' current projects is an equally valuable reprinting of the wonderful Dragon Warriors rpg through his Magnum Opus Press. But the Hogshead renaissance was too short lived and as the rpg market became overwhelmed with D&D fever in the wake of D&D 3rd edition in 2000, WFRP fans were left wondering if they would be left out in the cold.
That wonder was answered in 2005 when Green Ronin, under license from Games Workshop, designed and released Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay 2nd Edition. The game remained close in design to the original rpg, but added some new design elements and tried to clean up some ambiguities. It was also a marvel to look at.
Green Ronin's revitalization of WFRP contained the great strength of being largely compatible with the previous editions, but it also suffered from one major weakness. That weakness? That the game was largely compatible with the previous editions. This meant that the game, while easy to learn for an rpg veteran, isn't new gamer friendly. While the books are beautiful in art and layout, there was no "basic set" boxed edition targeted at the new gamer. WFRP 2e was targeted and marketed at an existing market -- those who love WFRP. This is too bad because while the list of "those who love WFRP" has been relatively stable over time, the list of "those who love Warhammer related products" had grown significantly.
This was in no small part because Games Workshop had worked very hard to make the Warhammer Miniatures games (both Fantasy and 40k -- their SF game) easier to learn and quicker to play. Warhammer Fantasy Miniatures and Warhammer 40k hit their "mechanical arcane density peak" in the late 80s with the release of the Realms of Chaos books. After a complex edition of miniatures rules, comprised of several dense volumes of rules, Games Workshop began to make their rules clearer and quicker to appeal to new gamers. They also made the games more modular and began a release cycle patter of "Core rules, Army Lists, Campaign Settings, Spin Off Tactical Game, New Edition with new sculpted minis." The system has worked very well and while Wargamers grumble about the cost and edition creep of Warhammer, it has become so constant as to be a hobby in itself and not a real uptick in anger.
Quicker, cleaner, easier, the tabletop wargame had that philosophy, but the rpg didn't. At least it didn't until last week. Fantasy Flight Games, the current holders of the WFRP license, have announced a new edition of the WFRP game.
As it is only four years since the triumphant return of the game in a new edition, the new release had more than its share of disgruntled detractors. Add to the short time frame between editions that a) WFRP gamers tend to favor a particular style of "old school" gameplay, b) the general environment of new edition anger permeating the internet due to other games new editions, and c) the high cost of an introductory box set, and one can see why there has been a little bit of an internet hubbub about this game.
But the game does need a new edition that appeals to a larger audience, if the game wants to expand the rpg marketplace and not merely peel off another segment. Looking at the components below, I think this might be the game to do it. It uses self explanatory dice, character cards, and comes in a boxed set. These are things that made Heroquest, Heroscape, and Runebound popular games.
If you add to all the pretty bits an engaging, clear, and quick to play rules set that has some depth with regard to rounding out character concepts you might just have a game that can bring some new gamers into the hobby. Oh, and if the rules are good enough, you may just be able to win over many of those who love WFRP already.
Time will tell, but I am excited.
Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay (WFRP) had the subtitle "A Grim World of Perilous Adventure," which turned out to be something of a vast understatement. Where other games tried to compete with D&D by giving the characters played by gamers more powers in a familiar system, WFRP made the characters more human. In AD&D, there are points in character advancement (an rpg term describing how characters acquire new spells and combat efficiency as they gain "experience") when the threat of character death lessens. This is never the case in WFRP. D&D is a game of kicking down doors and killing orcs. WFRP was a game of giving a second thought to being anywhere near the door. "Can't we just get the city guard to go instead," is a phrase frequently uttered by WFRP characters. WFRP's mechanics helpt to create narrative tension by having high levels of character vulnerability.
Add to the narrative tension and easy to learn system based on, but very different from, the system used in the Warhammer Fantasy miniatures game and you had a game destined to find an audience. When looking at the 1st edition Warhammer Fantasy miniatures rules one could still see reflections of TSR's Chainmail miniatures game. In fact, were it not for knowing how to play Warhammer I probably still wouldn't understand how to play Chainmail. By the time those systems were extrapolated to create WFRP, there is almost no relation to any form of D&D. Where D&D was chart heavy and had little granularity when it came to the skills characters possessed as unique individuals (only Thieves have any skills worth mentioning in early D&D), WFRP had a task resolution system based directly on the capabilities of the characters and the skills they possessed.
WFRP was cutting edge game design at the time -- it includes design elements influenced by Traveller among other games -- and added some elements that still influence modern game design. Some WFRP skills can only be described as "proto-feats" given the way they influence play. WFRP was a breath of fresh air, but it didn't stay in the limelight long and seemed to wither for a while. Then in 1995, James Wallis' Hogshead Publishing re-released the game for a new audience and reprinted some of the more difficult to find books for those of us who loved the game but had lacked well stocked game stores in the 80s. It should be noted that one of Wallis' current projects is an equally valuable reprinting of the wonderful Dragon Warriors rpg through his Magnum Opus Press. But the Hogshead renaissance was too short lived and as the rpg market became overwhelmed with D&D fever in the wake of D&D 3rd edition in 2000, WFRP fans were left wondering if they would be left out in the cold.
That wonder was answered in 2005 when Green Ronin, under license from Games Workshop, designed and released Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay 2nd Edition. The game remained close in design to the original rpg, but added some new design elements and tried to clean up some ambiguities. It was also a marvel to look at.
Green Ronin's revitalization of WFRP contained the great strength of being largely compatible with the previous editions, but it also suffered from one major weakness. That weakness? That the game was largely compatible with the previous editions. This meant that the game, while easy to learn for an rpg veteran, isn't new gamer friendly. While the books are beautiful in art and layout, there was no "basic set" boxed edition targeted at the new gamer. WFRP 2e was targeted and marketed at an existing market -- those who love WFRP. This is too bad because while the list of "those who love WFRP" has been relatively stable over time, the list of "those who love Warhammer related products" had grown significantly.
This was in no small part because Games Workshop had worked very hard to make the Warhammer Miniatures games (both Fantasy and 40k -- their SF game) easier to learn and quicker to play. Warhammer Fantasy Miniatures and Warhammer 40k hit their "mechanical arcane density peak" in the late 80s with the release of the Realms of Chaos books. After a complex edition of miniatures rules, comprised of several dense volumes of rules, Games Workshop began to make their rules clearer and quicker to appeal to new gamers. They also made the games more modular and began a release cycle patter of "Core rules, Army Lists, Campaign Settings, Spin Off Tactical Game, New Edition with new sculpted minis." The system has worked very well and while Wargamers grumble about the cost and edition creep of Warhammer, it has become so constant as to be a hobby in itself and not a real uptick in anger.
Quicker, cleaner, easier, the tabletop wargame had that philosophy, but the rpg didn't. At least it didn't until last week. Fantasy Flight Games, the current holders of the WFRP license, have announced a new edition of the WFRP game.
As it is only four years since the triumphant return of the game in a new edition, the new release had more than its share of disgruntled detractors. Add to the short time frame between editions that a) WFRP gamers tend to favor a particular style of "old school" gameplay, b) the general environment of new edition anger permeating the internet due to other games new editions, and c) the high cost of an introductory box set, and one can see why there has been a little bit of an internet hubbub about this game.
But the game does need a new edition that appeals to a larger audience, if the game wants to expand the rpg marketplace and not merely peel off another segment. Looking at the components below, I think this might be the game to do it. It uses self explanatory dice, character cards, and comes in a boxed set. These are things that made Heroquest, Heroscape, and Runebound popular games.
If you add to all the pretty bits an engaging, clear, and quick to play rules set that has some depth with regard to rounding out character concepts you might just have a game that can bring some new gamers into the hobby. Oh, and if the rules are good enough, you may just be able to win over many of those who love WFRP already.
Time will tell, but I am excited.
Friday, August 14, 2009
Hulu Recommendation Friday: Battlestar Galactica Classic
With today's news that Bryan Singer is signing on to direct a new Battlestar Galactica movie, inspired by the original series, it seems only appropriate that this Friday's Hulu recommendation be the Glen Larson epic.
Singer has a strong track record in genre films, with only one argument starting hiccup. Singer's X-men movies perfectly captured the tone of what made the Claremont/Byrne run of the comics so engaging, while simultaneously translating the narrative to a different medium. This was no small task and Singer should be rightfully praised -- especially since audiences would soon learn how easy it is to make a bad X-men movie when the third film in that franchise hit theaters.
Singer's one hiccup is his attempt to make an engaging and topical Superman film. His Superman Returns managed to simultaneously get everything right regarding how amazing Superman can be, while getting everything wrong about what makes the character great. The film is beautiful and follows in the footsteps of two excellent Superman films, ignoring the misguided 3rd and 4th films, but it is exceedingly flawed. While it is plausible that in the minutes following the ending of Superman II Kal-El would fly off into space to find news of his home -- especially after the meaningful final conversation with Jor-El -- Superman as deadbeat dad is still a painful concept with which to grapple. It also forgets the most critical aspect of Superman's personality, and the underlying reason Superman has a secret identity. There is no practical reason for Superman to have a secret identity. If Superman were Superman full time, no one would be at increased risk of villain attack. Unlike Spider-Man, Supes secret identity doesn't protect an "Aunt 'Em." Unlike Batman, his identity doesn't protect a vast fortune that can be used to aid the needy. Superman's having a human identity actually puts people at risk rather than protects them. His secret identity causes more problems than it solves. But it does do one thing, it allows him to become human and connect with community. Superman -- like the "perfected man" in Aristotle -- needs the city, that's why he has a secret identity. Singer would have been well served to remember this one fact. Still, the film is spectacularly beautiful and contains two of the best Superman sequences ever filmed. It is a work of contradictions.
The same may end up being true of Singer's Battlestar Galactica. All signs point to his version being closer to the vision of series creator Glen Larson. Larson's BSG was Mormonism as SF narrative. It was biblical allegory with a touch of humor. It was filled with hope in the face of despair. It was more Orson Scott Card than William Gibson, it was more Heinlein than Haldeman. For these reasons, a generation of viewers were engrossed each week as the show aired for its sole season -- we won't count Battlestar 1980. It was a perfect example of golden age SF Space Opera.
When Ron Moore -- who shall forever be known to Cinerati as the man who killed Kirk because Picard couldn't win a fist fight -- re-envisioned the franchise for his 73 episode run, he did so as a writer influenced by Gibson and Haldeman and the events of a post-9/11 world. The story was dark and hopeless, and featured a human civilization not worthy of saving. The colonies of Moore's BSG are craven and deserve destruction, but as individuals they are more human. The series is often praised for its writing, but such praise is misguided. The show is amazingly acted -- the cast does a phenomenal job -- but any series that ends with the ultimate SF cliche ("and their names were Adam and Eve") lacks the depth that its facade presents to the world at large. BSG is the poster child for a generation of viewers/readers who believe "grim means philosophically deep." For those who grew up on the SF of Heinlein and Asimov, deconstructive tales are refreshing. For those who grew up on the SF of Moorcock, Haldeman, and Gibson, deconstructive SF is stale.
I am among those who found BSG stale and staid, but well directed and acted. It is the "reconstructive" narrative that I find refreshing. Give me The Incredibles and Wall-E over most modern SF. Give me Old Man's War instead of Forever War. These are what I find well crafted, innovative, and refreshing.
Singer will have an arduous task ahead of him. Moore's BSG won critical acclaim and brought new audience to the IP, at the expense of losing some of the nostalgic crowd -- people like me. Larson's original is dated and overly campy, so it can't be directly remade. It must be properly reconstructed or those fans who were dissatisfied with Moore's work will still be dissatisfied. But it also has to have complex characters, something Moore's definitely had, or those newer BSG fans will reject the vision as well.
Singer has the same challenge he had with Superman Returns, presenting a narrative of hope that contains complex characters. It is likely any Battlestar he creates will contain some of the same flaws as Superman Returns. Given Singer's ability to craft beautiful visuals and given the stable of actors who frequent his films, I look forward to seeing Singer's Battlestar...flawed or not.
As always -- for those in the US -- hit play, then click on the full screen button and enjoy.
Singer has a strong track record in genre films, with only one argument starting hiccup. Singer's X-men movies perfectly captured the tone of what made the Claremont/Byrne run of the comics so engaging, while simultaneously translating the narrative to a different medium. This was no small task and Singer should be rightfully praised -- especially since audiences would soon learn how easy it is to make a bad X-men movie when the third film in that franchise hit theaters.
Singer's one hiccup is his attempt to make an engaging and topical Superman film. His Superman Returns managed to simultaneously get everything right regarding how amazing Superman can be, while getting everything wrong about what makes the character great. The film is beautiful and follows in the footsteps of two excellent Superman films, ignoring the misguided 3rd and 4th films, but it is exceedingly flawed. While it is plausible that in the minutes following the ending of Superman II Kal-El would fly off into space to find news of his home -- especially after the meaningful final conversation with Jor-El -- Superman as deadbeat dad is still a painful concept with which to grapple. It also forgets the most critical aspect of Superman's personality, and the underlying reason Superman has a secret identity. There is no practical reason for Superman to have a secret identity. If Superman were Superman full time, no one would be at increased risk of villain attack. Unlike Spider-Man, Supes secret identity doesn't protect an "Aunt 'Em." Unlike Batman, his identity doesn't protect a vast fortune that can be used to aid the needy. Superman's having a human identity actually puts people at risk rather than protects them. His secret identity causes more problems than it solves. But it does do one thing, it allows him to become human and connect with community. Superman -- like the "perfected man" in Aristotle -- needs the city, that's why he has a secret identity. Singer would have been well served to remember this one fact. Still, the film is spectacularly beautiful and contains two of the best Superman sequences ever filmed. It is a work of contradictions.
The same may end up being true of Singer's Battlestar Galactica. All signs point to his version being closer to the vision of series creator Glen Larson. Larson's BSG was Mormonism as SF narrative. It was biblical allegory with a touch of humor. It was filled with hope in the face of despair. It was more Orson Scott Card than William Gibson, it was more Heinlein than Haldeman. For these reasons, a generation of viewers were engrossed each week as the show aired for its sole season -- we won't count Battlestar 1980. It was a perfect example of golden age SF Space Opera.
When Ron Moore -- who shall forever be known to Cinerati as the man who killed Kirk because Picard couldn't win a fist fight -- re-envisioned the franchise for his 73 episode run, he did so as a writer influenced by Gibson and Haldeman and the events of a post-9/11 world. The story was dark and hopeless, and featured a human civilization not worthy of saving. The colonies of Moore's BSG are craven and deserve destruction, but as individuals they are more human. The series is often praised for its writing, but such praise is misguided. The show is amazingly acted -- the cast does a phenomenal job -- but any series that ends with the ultimate SF cliche ("and their names were Adam and Eve") lacks the depth that its facade presents to the world at large. BSG is the poster child for a generation of viewers/readers who believe "grim means philosophically deep." For those who grew up on the SF of Heinlein and Asimov, deconstructive tales are refreshing. For those who grew up on the SF of Moorcock, Haldeman, and Gibson, deconstructive SF is stale.
I am among those who found BSG stale and staid, but well directed and acted. It is the "reconstructive" narrative that I find refreshing. Give me The Incredibles and Wall-E over most modern SF. Give me Old Man's War instead of Forever War. These are what I find well crafted, innovative, and refreshing.
Singer will have an arduous task ahead of him. Moore's BSG won critical acclaim and brought new audience to the IP, at the expense of losing some of the nostalgic crowd -- people like me. Larson's original is dated and overly campy, so it can't be directly remade. It must be properly reconstructed or those fans who were dissatisfied with Moore's work will still be dissatisfied. But it also has to have complex characters, something Moore's definitely had, or those newer BSG fans will reject the vision as well.
Singer has the same challenge he had with Superman Returns, presenting a narrative of hope that contains complex characters. It is likely any Battlestar he creates will contain some of the same flaws as Superman Returns. Given Singer's ability to craft beautiful visuals and given the stable of actors who frequent his films, I look forward to seeing Singer's Battlestar...flawed or not.
As always -- for those in the US -- hit play, then click on the full screen button and enjoy.
Thursday, August 13, 2009
Anne Thompson, Toy Movies, District 9, and the Indie/Popular Divide
I am a great admirer of Anne Thompson and find the majority of her coverage of Hollywood to be insightful, and to be honest "must reading." But there are times when I just have to cross her name off of the Holiday card list, and her recent post discussing the merits of District 9 while excoriating Hollywood for making films like GI Joe is one of those times.
Certainly, Thompson is right to praise a film like District 9 which manages to bring to the big screen quality science fiction at a budget price. Geekerati plans to do a show this weekend begging the question, "is there an inverse relationship between budget and the quality of an SF film?" Where Anne wanders off into the hinterlands of privilege, snobbery, killjoydom, and filmic cultural selectivity is when she writes, "That’s why I want G.I. Joe to take a dive this weekend (sorry Lorenzo Di Bonaventura), not because I want Paramount to lose money but because I want the Transformers-blinded studios to see that derivative toy movies are not the only way to go." Even worse, she goes on to claim that Hollywood executives, "In their search for franchises and tentpoles... ignore the obvious: most of them were once originals, from Star Wars and Lethal Weapon to The Matrix and Raiders of the Lost Ark."
One find's it hard to believe that a journalist covering Hollywood could write such passages, that is unless the same journalist happens to be wearing her Blinders of Public Disdain +5. Apparently, Anne owns a pair of those not so rare magic items -- or maybe she has the powerful artifact Schiller's Monocle of Aesthetic Disdain. Whatever the case may be, her statements are not only disrespectful of a particular audience demographic (Gen X and younger males), but are just plain incorrect at one level -- she is correct in stating "studios often forget what their customers really want: something new that they’ve never seen before". She just forgets that they equally want something that they are nostalgic for.
It's one thing to assert Anne's wrongheadedness, but one must address the individual statements and analyze them as well.
First, why should Anne want GI JOE to fail because she "want[s] the Transformers-blinded studios to see that derivative toy movies are not the only way to go?" Is it necessary for studios to fail for them to see that movies inspired by nostalgia for a particular intellectual property aren't the only way to go?
Not a chance.
If the films should be required to fail, it should be because they fail to inspire the same level of awe that was created by the intellectual property audiences feel nostalgia for in the first place. Hollywood should make hundreds of "derivative toy movies" if they manage to capture the mystique of the original IP -- especially if they are profitable. Transformers has failed to do this twice, largely because they have erred to much on the side of making adolescents laugh and not enough on telling a good story. This is the opposite error that many childrens movies make today, the modern kid flick spends to much time making sure to wink at the adults in the audience and not enough time telling a compelling story. If Transformers 2 had fewer "ball" jokes, and a more coherent narrative, the film would have been amazing. Sadly, that was not the case. It's hard to say that Transformers had a derivative narrative, since it's hard to say what the narrative of the film even was -- other than giant robots blowing stuff up.
This isn't true of GI Joe: The Rise of Cobra. The Joe film managed to have an underlying narrative that was fairly original.
[Spoiler Alert that contains information that even those who saw the movie may not have understood] Cobra's plan was to replace the President of the United States with a Cobra agent so that when a major terrorist attack took place the world would turn to the US for leadership, only to end up under the direct control of the terrorist group behind the attack.[End Spoiler Alert]
That's a pretty cool underlying premise. The execution of the film is flawed, as the film tries to do to much in some areas and not enough in others, but that's not a particularly derivative story. In fact, in structure and execution one could argue that the GI JOE film is the true heir to the 007 films of Connery and Moore -- as the Craig movies are more a return to the tone and feel of the novels. One can argue that Joe wasted money on cast, money it didn't need to spend, since it is the IP and not the cast that brings one to a nostalgia fest, but one shouldn't argue that it was derivative. "Original?" No. "Awe Inspiring?" No. But if one imagines what the collective mind of 12 year old boys in 1984 want out of a Joe film, one gets a film pretty close to what ended up on the screen. That was the point, to fuel and feed off of nostalgia.
Even more to the point of it not being "necessary for studios to fail for them to see that movies inspired by nostalgia for a particular intellectual property aren't the only way to go?" Let's look at some very successful films from the past decade that break from the "tent pole" assumptions. My Big Fat Greek Wedding and Mama Mia! by themselves provide ample proof that lower budget movies aimed at a "non-tent pole" audience (read: not 18-35 males) can make an amazing amount of profit. It is necessary that non-extravaganzas be made and be successful for studios to see these films have value. The more that are made, the more that will be made...by the studios. Studios will go where the money is. It is easy to do a Net Present Value analysis of an existing IP, with an established fan base. It is much more difficult to do one on an unknown idea. You have to be willing to take a risk and lose money, and that's something that business people don't like to do. They don't like to spend good money after bad.
Want to watch your investment money disappear faster than an addiction to crystal meth? Invest in an independent movie that you believe in. Risky films are risky. That's why Hollywood, which is risk averse because it likes profits, doesn't make a lot of these films. Show them that the risk isn't as big as they believe, and you can and will see more films like Juno.
Never mind the logical fallacy that "toy movies" need to fail for studios to learn there are other options, even more egregious is Thompson's assertion that "most of them [tentpoles] were once originals, from Star Wars and Lethal Weapon to The Matrix and Raiders of the Lost Ark." Originals? Really? Are you serious? I'll give you The Matrix (just), but the others?
Can Thompson actually believe that Star Wars, a masterful combination of the narratives of Hidden Fortress and the Flash Gordon serials -- which includes frames lifted straight out of Flash Gordon, is original? Shoot me now. Star Wars is amazing, but it is highly derivative. It is homage.
The same is true for the Allan Quartermain inspired Raiders of the Lost Ark. Could this movie exist without King Solomon's Mines? Not a chance. Raiders is phenomenal because it captures the essence of the old serials and combines it with the raw fun of H. Rider Haggard's tales. As an aside, King Kong is a combination of Haggard's tales with Conan Doyle's The Lost World. Raiders appealed to a nostalgia in a particular generation and did it so well it created nostalgia in a new one.
If Thompson is even trying to hint at the fact that Hollywood's great movies were "original," I can already feel the milk bubbling through my nose from the laughter.
Gone with the Wind? Based on a novel.
Wizard of Oz? Based on a novel.
West Side Story? Based on a Broadway musical, based on Romeo and Juliet.
The Maltese Falcon (1941)? Based on a Dashiell Hammett novel and had three theatrical versions between 1931 and 1941. Three in a decade before they made a great version?!
Yojimbo? Based on Dashiell Hammett's Red Harvest with a touch of The Glass Key thrown in for good measure.
Rashomon? Based on a short story.
I could go on and on and on. Hollywood isn't in the business of making "original" stories. Heck, film makers aren't in the business of making "original" stories. Hollywood is in the business of making money. Film makers are in the business of entertaining. Sometimes they entertain us with original ideas, and some times they entertain us with familiar ones. I put no preference on either category. I just want to be entertained...and sometimes educated when I'm feeling Aristotelian.
As for District 9? I'm excited about this combination of Alien Nation, V, and Cry Freedom. Though I do share some of Science Fiction author Steven Barnes' concerns.
Truth is, there is a lot of truth in Anne's article. Hollywood should remember that there is a relationship between risk and reward. The higher the risk, the greater the potential reward. Films like GI JOE may have a predictable NPV, but they aren't going to provide the high levels of profitability that something like My Big Fat Greek Wedding are going to bring.
Hollywood should take some risks.
But Anne...you need to stop hating the male Gen X and younger audience. We just want to be reminded of those afternoons when we and our friends made up stories while playing with our GI JOE and TRANSFORMERS action figures.
Certainly, Thompson is right to praise a film like District 9 which manages to bring to the big screen quality science fiction at a budget price. Geekerati plans to do a show this weekend begging the question, "is there an inverse relationship between budget and the quality of an SF film?" Where Anne wanders off into the hinterlands of privilege, snobbery, killjoydom, and filmic cultural selectivity is when she writes, "That’s why I want G.I. Joe to take a dive this weekend (sorry Lorenzo Di Bonaventura), not because I want Paramount to lose money but because I want the Transformers-blinded studios to see that derivative toy movies are not the only way to go." Even worse, she goes on to claim that Hollywood executives, "In their search for franchises and tentpoles... ignore the obvious: most of them were once originals, from Star Wars and Lethal Weapon to The Matrix and Raiders of the Lost Ark."
One find's it hard to believe that a journalist covering Hollywood could write such passages, that is unless the same journalist happens to be wearing her Blinders of Public Disdain +5. Apparently, Anne owns a pair of those not so rare magic items -- or maybe she has the powerful artifact Schiller's Monocle of Aesthetic Disdain. Whatever the case may be, her statements are not only disrespectful of a particular audience demographic (Gen X and younger males), but are just plain incorrect at one level -- she is correct in stating "studios often forget what their customers really want: something new that they’ve never seen before". She just forgets that they equally want something that they are nostalgic for.
It's one thing to assert Anne's wrongheadedness, but one must address the individual statements and analyze them as well.
First, why should Anne want GI JOE to fail because she "want[s] the Transformers-blinded studios to see that derivative toy movies are not the only way to go?" Is it necessary for studios to fail for them to see that movies inspired by nostalgia for a particular intellectual property aren't the only way to go?
Not a chance.
If the films should be required to fail, it should be because they fail to inspire the same level of awe that was created by the intellectual property audiences feel nostalgia for in the first place. Hollywood should make hundreds of "derivative toy movies" if they manage to capture the mystique of the original IP -- especially if they are profitable. Transformers has failed to do this twice, largely because they have erred to much on the side of making adolescents laugh and not enough on telling a good story. This is the opposite error that many childrens movies make today, the modern kid flick spends to much time making sure to wink at the adults in the audience and not enough time telling a compelling story. If Transformers 2 had fewer "ball" jokes, and a more coherent narrative, the film would have been amazing. Sadly, that was not the case. It's hard to say that Transformers had a derivative narrative, since it's hard to say what the narrative of the film even was -- other than giant robots blowing stuff up.
This isn't true of GI Joe: The Rise of Cobra. The Joe film managed to have an underlying narrative that was fairly original.
[Spoiler Alert that contains information that even those who saw the movie may not have understood] Cobra's plan was to replace the President of the United States with a Cobra agent so that when a major terrorist attack took place the world would turn to the US for leadership, only to end up under the direct control of the terrorist group behind the attack.[End Spoiler Alert]
That's a pretty cool underlying premise. The execution of the film is flawed, as the film tries to do to much in some areas and not enough in others, but that's not a particularly derivative story. In fact, in structure and execution one could argue that the GI JOE film is the true heir to the 007 films of Connery and Moore -- as the Craig movies are more a return to the tone and feel of the novels. One can argue that Joe wasted money on cast, money it didn't need to spend, since it is the IP and not the cast that brings one to a nostalgia fest, but one shouldn't argue that it was derivative. "Original?" No. "Awe Inspiring?" No. But if one imagines what the collective mind of 12 year old boys in 1984 want out of a Joe film, one gets a film pretty close to what ended up on the screen. That was the point, to fuel and feed off of nostalgia.
Even more to the point of it not being "necessary for studios to fail for them to see that movies inspired by nostalgia for a particular intellectual property aren't the only way to go?" Let's look at some very successful films from the past decade that break from the "tent pole" assumptions. My Big Fat Greek Wedding and Mama Mia! by themselves provide ample proof that lower budget movies aimed at a "non-tent pole" audience (read: not 18-35 males) can make an amazing amount of profit. It is necessary that non-extravaganzas be made and be successful for studios to see these films have value. The more that are made, the more that will be made...by the studios. Studios will go where the money is. It is easy to do a Net Present Value analysis of an existing IP, with an established fan base. It is much more difficult to do one on an unknown idea. You have to be willing to take a risk and lose money, and that's something that business people don't like to do. They don't like to spend good money after bad.
Want to watch your investment money disappear faster than an addiction to crystal meth? Invest in an independent movie that you believe in. Risky films are risky. That's why Hollywood, which is risk averse because it likes profits, doesn't make a lot of these films. Show them that the risk isn't as big as they believe, and you can and will see more films like Juno.
Never mind the logical fallacy that "toy movies" need to fail for studios to learn there are other options, even more egregious is Thompson's assertion that "most of them [tentpoles] were once originals, from Star Wars and Lethal Weapon to The Matrix and Raiders of the Lost Ark." Originals? Really? Are you serious? I'll give you The Matrix (just), but the others?
Can Thompson actually believe that Star Wars, a masterful combination of the narratives of Hidden Fortress and the Flash Gordon serials -- which includes frames lifted straight out of Flash Gordon, is original? Shoot me now. Star Wars is amazing, but it is highly derivative. It is homage.
The same is true for the Allan Quartermain inspired Raiders of the Lost Ark. Could this movie exist without King Solomon's Mines? Not a chance. Raiders is phenomenal because it captures the essence of the old serials and combines it with the raw fun of H. Rider Haggard's tales. As an aside, King Kong is a combination of Haggard's tales with Conan Doyle's The Lost World. Raiders appealed to a nostalgia in a particular generation and did it so well it created nostalgia in a new one.
If Thompson is even trying to hint at the fact that Hollywood's great movies were "original," I can already feel the milk bubbling through my nose from the laughter.
Gone with the Wind? Based on a novel.
Wizard of Oz? Based on a novel.
West Side Story? Based on a Broadway musical, based on Romeo and Juliet.
The Maltese Falcon (1941)? Based on a Dashiell Hammett novel and had three theatrical versions between 1931 and 1941. Three in a decade before they made a great version?!
Yojimbo? Based on Dashiell Hammett's Red Harvest with a touch of The Glass Key thrown in for good measure.
Rashomon? Based on a short story.
I could go on and on and on. Hollywood isn't in the business of making "original" stories. Heck, film makers aren't in the business of making "original" stories. Hollywood is in the business of making money. Film makers are in the business of entertaining. Sometimes they entertain us with original ideas, and some times they entertain us with familiar ones. I put no preference on either category. I just want to be entertained...and sometimes educated when I'm feeling Aristotelian.
As for District 9? I'm excited about this combination of Alien Nation, V, and Cry Freedom. Though I do share some of Science Fiction author Steven Barnes' concerns.
Truth is, there is a lot of truth in Anne's article. Hollywood should remember that there is a relationship between risk and reward. The higher the risk, the greater the potential reward. Films like GI JOE may have a predictable NPV, but they aren't going to provide the high levels of profitability that something like My Big Fat Greek Wedding are going to bring.
Hollywood should take some risks.
But Anne...you need to stop hating the male Gen X and younger audience. We just want to be reminded of those afternoons when we and our friends made up stories while playing with our GI JOE and TRANSFORMERS action figures.
Monday, August 10, 2009
Hulu Recommendation Friday (on Monday) -- The Legend of the Seeker
Since 1994, Terry Goodkind's objectivist Sword of Truth has been flying off the shelves. The series combines objectivist philosophy with traditional fantasy storytelling to very good effect. If you ever wondered what a fantasy series written by Howard Roark would read like, the Sword of Truth series is a pretty good approximation.
The first novel, Wizard's First Rule, is the novel that suffers the most from "generic-itis." The overall story in the novel is very similar to the underlying narrative of Terry Brook's wonderful Sword of Shannara -- itself reminiscent of the Tolkien classic Lord of the Rings. Both Goodkind's and Brook's novels focus on the importance of Truth and the dispelling of "illusion." Both books are entertaining, but each approaches the central theme of Truth from a different perspective. Brook's Shannara series uses the more traditional fantasy toolkit of mythic tradition to advance his argument. Goodkind, on the other hand, uses the novel as a place to embed philosophic discussions. Beginning with the discussion of the titular "wizard's first rule," and not really ending in the first novel, the book continually examines the best tools for determining Truth.
Goodkind's books are entertaining and insightful, and one need not be an Objectivist to appreciate them.
The Legend of the Seeker television series is a very entertaining adaptation of the Goodkind series to the tv medium. Sam Raimi's production company Ghost House Pictures is affiliated with the show, but unlike Raimi's prior fantasy foray's Xena and Hercules this series doesn't fall as much into slapstick. Xena and Hercules were fantasy for Three Stooges fans (which includes Cinerati), but The Sword of Truth is fantasy for television fans.
As always, click play then click full screen and enjoy.
The first novel, Wizard's First Rule, is the novel that suffers the most from "generic-itis." The overall story in the novel is very similar to the underlying narrative of Terry Brook's wonderful Sword of Shannara -- itself reminiscent of the Tolkien classic Lord of the Rings. Both Goodkind's and Brook's novels focus on the importance of Truth and the dispelling of "illusion." Both books are entertaining, but each approaches the central theme of Truth from a different perspective. Brook's Shannara series uses the more traditional fantasy toolkit of mythic tradition to advance his argument. Goodkind, on the other hand, uses the novel as a place to embed philosophic discussions. Beginning with the discussion of the titular "wizard's first rule," and not really ending in the first novel, the book continually examines the best tools for determining Truth.
Goodkind's books are entertaining and insightful, and one need not be an Objectivist to appreciate them.
The Legend of the Seeker television series is a very entertaining adaptation of the Goodkind series to the tv medium. Sam Raimi's production company Ghost House Pictures is affiliated with the show, but unlike Raimi's prior fantasy foray's Xena and Hercules this series doesn't fall as much into slapstick. Xena and Hercules were fantasy for Three Stooges fans (which includes Cinerati), but The Sword of Truth is fantasy for television fans.
As always, click play then click full screen and enjoy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)