A GenCon Debrief -- Dark Sun, Ravenloft, Gamma World, Ennies, and Fantasy Flight

Tonight on Geekerati Radio (8pm Pacific) we'll be discussing Christian's recent trip to GenCon. He avoided Con Crud, but he didn't avoid fatigue. It was Christian's first visit since the con moved to Indianapolis, and it was a wonderful experience. Join Christian and Shawna tonight for the discussion. Feel free to call us at (646) 478-5041 during the show and join in on the conversation.

You Can Take Our Money, But You'll Never Take Our DS's!!

Elizabeth Young, over at Forces of Geek, has a post that contains this video showing how gamers will let you harass them and take their money, but don't even think about taking their Nintendo DS's.

Then comes the smack down!

GOLD Webseries Posts First "Companion" Series Trailer

David Nett and company have posted a trailer for a one-shot spin-off webisode of their popular GOLD rpg gamer drama web series entitled NIGHT OF THE ZOMBIE KING. From the looks of the trailer, this one shot will lack some of the features that rubbed me the wrong way in the original series. I still think the original series is entertaining and well crafted, but this trailer hints that the storytelling talents of the GOLD crew are getting better and better.



My one complaint regarding the performances in the trailer is that the physical conflict in the middle looks forced and inorganic. As such, itloses some of the dramatic power it could otherwise have.

Suckerpunch -- Zack Snyder's New Film Trailer is a Nerdgasm

What if Kenneth Hite re-imagined Pan's Labyrinth and included Tri-Planes, Dragons, Mecha, Machine Guns, Samurai, Kung Fu? OH MY!

Did I mention the Nazis and the exploding Zeppelin?!

Zack Snyder's next film is an original work written by the director. It tells the story of a young girl who is institutionalized by her cruel stepfather and who retreats into a fantasy land in order to cope with the situation and gain her revenge. The film is so high concept that it makes my brain want to explode. From what is in the video, there is almost no conceivable way that this film can have a coherent narrative.

And you know what?

I cannot wait.

Then again, I am a sucker for exploding Zeppelins.

GOLD -- The Web Series that Does HALF Damage

If you want to see an excellent independent drama/comedy that focuses on Generation X geek culture, go watch FREE ENTERPRISE written by Robert Meyer Burnett and Mark A. Altman. The film combines a solidly humorous "turning 30" narrative with constant LOGAN'S RUN, STAR TREK, STAR WARS, and comic book references. If SWINGERS weren't already the geek's version of SWINGERS, then FREE ENTERPRISE would easily take that slot in film canon. Oh...and it has William Shatner as an actor named William Shatner who wants to make a musical version of JULIUS CAESAR with William Shatner performing all the speaking roles. The film is hilarious and on target.



GOLD, a web series created by David Nett, is an attempt to for gaming what FREE ENTERPRISE did for the rest of Generation X geek culture. That is to say that it attempts to create a compelling drama around the lives of a group of individuals how happen to be professional role playing gamers. Every work of fiction has its one "gimme," in the world of GOLD that gimme is that there is a role playing game league that has enough fans who wish to watch games being played that role playing is a professional sport. Other than that, the world is our world.

If I were of a mind to do it, I could make almost endless comparisons between GOLD the web series and FREE ENTERPRISE. One of GOLD'S co-protagonists is a tad whiny and fails to seize the initiative while wallowing in his own personal drama, like the character played by Eric McCormack in ENTERPRISE. Both have nightmare's related to their "drama." The other of GOLD'S co-protagonists sleeps around with people he has disdain for, and is the "cooler" of the co-protagonists. FREE ENTERPRISE'S Rafer Weigel character comes quickly to mind. But there are enough differences between the two that I believe that the similarities are coincidental, especially given the differences in the overall tone and narrative.

Some comparisons need to be made, because FREE ENTERPRISE did such a good job of translating geek culture to a wider audience, but not beat by beat comparisons.

I want to love GOLD. It is attempting, unlike most gamer web series, to present a serious drama series focused around the lives of gamers. Sometimes it succeeds, but most of the time it seems to suffer from what I call "pilotitis."

Pilotitis is when a show's pilot presents the viewer with an intriguing premise -- that is for the most part well done -- but that feels ragged around the edges. That describes GOLD to a T.

It's six 10-minute episodes equate roughly to an hour long drama pilot, and the overall story is interesting. The show isn't about gaming, it's about the people who play role playing games. This is where the show shines. The character interactions are believable and often compelling.

Where the show fails is in translating to its audience what exactly is going on in the narrative. If a viewer were to jump in at episode two without a knowledge of role playing games -- and without reading the background on the About tab of the GOLD website -- that viewer would feel lost to some extent. The episode narrative would be clear, but the season's narrative arc would be unclear.

Jon, one of the co-protagonists of GOLD, is in physical rehabilitation for some sort of injury sustained during a gaming competition. The cause of that injury isn't revealed until the 6th episode of the series. If one watches the prologue and episode one, without reading the website, one might come to believe that the accident happened in the kitchen when Jon was telling his soon to be wife he would still be a while at the game. That's not clear storytelling -- and that is what this show lacks.

It is often said, and rightfully, that stories need to be character driven. They also need to have a narrative that lets the audience see what is happening. An audience watching a visual medium needs to be shown and not told. They also need more than vague implications. They need to see the world at large and how it affects the characters.

Nett and crew get the characterizations right. They get the acting right most of the time, though it is agonizing to watch the acting injured moments. The characterizations are sometimes over the top, but that is appropriate to the genre. If only more of the characters were over the top. If only more of the narrative were over the top. If only there were more humor in the show.

Then the show would be great.

As it is, the show just hits my entertainment Armor Class. Given my desire to like shows in the genre, meaning that my gamer web series AC is lower than normal, I think that the show might struggle outside of the gaming community. It doesn't quite fill in enough information for the uninitiated and uses its website as too much of a crutch for filling in narrative elements that were not shown during the episodes.

For those who are gamers though, GOLD provides the first real attempt at a genuine dramatic entertainment featuring gamers as protagonists. This in and of itself is praiseworthy. The fact that it does a workmanlike job and presents compelling characters is icing on the cake.

If you're a gamer, I recommend watching GOLD and supporting its second season. If you aren't a gamer you should still watch it, but only after reading all of the background information on the website.



PEDANTRY ALERT: Rulebooks from quite a few different roleplaying games are used as props to represent the rules for the "in world" role playing game. Looking for these easter eggs can be a distraction, but they are proof that the creators are people who genuinely love games. Why else would Jon be picking up a copy of the Mayfair Games edition of CHILL? I don't even want to think about all of the licensing problems associated with the DM screens and wall posters in this series.

Book Review: The Adventures of the Princess and Mr. Wiffle: The Thing Beneath the Bed

Patrick Rothfuss, the fantasy author behind the excellent novel The Name of the Wind, has authored a new Fairy Tale picture book that boldly proclaims it is not a book for children. The book is entitled The Adventures of the Princess and Mr. Whiffle: The Thing Beneath the Bed and is published by Subterranean Press.

Given the book's cover, it is perfectly natural that one might be surprised to read that the book claims that it isn't a book for children, but the dust cover explains the book as follows:

This is not a book for Children.
It looks like a children's book. It has pictures. It has a saccharine-sweet title. The main characters are a little girl and her teddy bear. But all of that is just protective coloration. The truth is, this is a book for adults with a sense of humor and an appreciation of old-school faerie tales.

There are three separate endings to the book. Depending on where you stop, you are left with an entirely different story. One ending is sweet, another is horrible. The last one is the true ending, the one with teeth in it.

The Adventures of the Princess and Mr. Whiffle is a dark twist on the classic children's picture book. I think of it as Calvin and Hobbes meets Coraline, with some Edward Gorey mixed in.

Simply said: This is not a book for children.

If one were to look up in a fictitious dictionary of "Descriptions that Set Off Christian's Potentially Pretentious Schlock (PPS) Alarm," one would find the above paragraph under the third listing. For those of you who are wondering, the first listing is references to Neil Gaiman (which this violates) and the second deals with references to Alan Moore.

Given the book's description above, and acknowledging that it has set off my PPS alarm, I purchased the book in the hopes that Mr. Rothfuss -- who is quite a talented writer -- could deliver a quality tale in a genre where most of the work is drivel. That is to say, most darkly humorous "twists" on traditional children's tales are crap. Primarily because they focus so much on being "ironic" that they forget just how horrifying traditional children's stories can be and think that adding a "dark twist" improves upon -- or is ironically superior to -- a tried and true formula.

Classic Fairy Tales (or "faerie tales" depending on who is writing) can be quite horrible in their descriptions. Let's take Hans Christian Andersen's The Red Shoes as an example. The story is a wonderful tale of the dangers of materialism and the consequences of vanity. Andersen never holds back and the tale is horrifically gruesome at its climax:

“Don’t cut off my head!” said Karen, “for then I could not repent of my sin. But cut off my feet with the red shoes.”

And then she confessed all her sin, and the executioner struck off her feet with the red shoes; but the shoes danced away with the little feet across the field into the deep forest.

And he carved her a pair of wooden feet and some crutches, and taught her a psalm which is always sung by sinners; she kissed the hand that guided the axe, and went away over the heath.

Here we have one of the classic fairy tales, told by one of the masters of the "children's" tale, and the girl has her feet cut off and replaced with wooden feet. Not only that, she kisses the hand that removed her feet in thanks for the action. If this tale were to be translated into film, as written, it seems more a Guillermo Del Toro movie than a Disney one.

The old fairy tales were filled with gruesome imagery that many modern parents would think is inappropriate for children. I am not one of those parents and my children will receive the full brunt of Andersen's tales. These stories could be as dark as any "dark twist" story, but the classic stories were also rigid morality tales.

And this is where most "dark twist" stories differ from their inspiration. Most tales of the modern ironic "faerie tale" variety want the darkness without the morality tale, they are pretentiously cosmopolitan pieces that seek only to be either ironic, shocking, or funny. When they are merely ironic or "shocking," they are typically failures of narrative as the stories lack and underlying heart to them. When they are funny, they can be quite good. It isn't the lack of a morality tale that makes the "dark twist" tale fail -- when it fails -- it is the lack of love for the medium itself.

Now that I have expressed some of the reservations that Mr. Rothfuss's description awakened, how does The Adventures of the Princess and Mr. Whiffle hold up?

It is clear from the beginning that Rothfuss loves children's stories. It is equally clear by page 10 that he is trying to write a humorous tale for those who like fairy tales. The pattern of event to joke that is established in the first 11 pages is the pattern for the final joke as well.

Let me repeat the statement above. This is a tale for those who like fairy tales, though not a tale for those who are just now being introduced to fairy tales. The big joke of the book works best if you have read many a fairy tale and are familiar with all the tropes of a fairy tale. It isn't that the book "isn't for children" in the sense that it would horrify them, or is inappropriate some how. It's just that the book's twist is intended to amuse someone who has read many a fairy tale.

The problem is that the joke, while initially amusing, doesn't live up to the hype. It is a chuckle joke and not a coca-cola squirting out the nostrils because it is so funny joke. It amuses, but lacks profundity. Which is too bad because the main narrative of the story, as well as the art work, is quite good. I found myself turning each page eagerly awaiting what new adventure the Princess and Mr. Whiffle would embark upon, or how they would deal with the monster under the bed.

Rothfuss is a magical storyteller throughout the book, but the twist falls flat.

The basic story is of a Princess who lives alone in a castle and has as a sole companion her teddy bear Mr. Wiffle. The two go on many imaginary journeys with one another during the day, but at night they fear the thing under the bed. The Princess's wild imagination speculates that the creature is horrible and terrible and...You'll have to read the book to find out the rest.

There are three ways that Rothfuss could have gone that would have made the book's ending work better for me.

First, he could have seriously tackled the horror of what is under the bed. Most children have feared things that go bump in the night and Rothfuss is a good enough storyteller to bring to the page that horror.

Second, he could have done a commentary on how cruel children can be when they leave their childhood companions behind. I have trouble reading the final Pooh tale because it makes me despise Christopher Robin. His abandonment of Pooh is quite cruel, as is the abandonment of Puff in that tale. When children abandon their childhood companions in the way that Christopher Robin does, they do more than leave childish things behind -- they leave their imagination and their souls as well. That would have been an interesting story that Rothfuss could easily have written.

Third, he could have gone a little bit further with the ending that he did write. We never learn the why of the castle, or the background story. Don't merely give me the joke, use it as an opportunity to continue the tale. Of course, Rothfuss could do this in a subsequent volume in the series and that would satisfy me. The fact that one of my complaints about the ending is that it opens up more questions that I desire answered is a benefit.

Overall, I think that the book falls somewhere between the two Kenneth Hite Lovecraftian Children's books (Where the Deep Ones Are and The Antarctic Express) in quality. It has the charm of Deep Ones, but drops the ball a little at the end like Antarctic.

Nate Taylor's artwork in the book is excellent, with the exception of the Princess's face from time to time. Her expressions sometimes venture into "anime" style, whereas the rest of the illustration in in a more traditional children's book illustration style. This is a minor quibble as the illustrations are quite fun. In particular illustrations on pages 11,46, and 67.

As the parent of two year-old twin daughters, I am always on the lookout for stories that I can share with them. This book makes the cut, for when they are six or so, but its ending prevents it from being in the same league as Jane Yolen's excellent How Do Dinosaurs series.

Rothfuss's story doesn't lack heart, but it does fail to answer the question "why?" Why does the twist happen? Just because it is ironic? That's not enough of an answer. I want a world that explains the why. Then we have a tale that can lead to interesting discussions.

As it is, we have a story of mild amusement that is well written and illustrated, but fizzles at the end.

New TRON: LEGACY Trailer

Unlike the editors of Variety, whose jaded view of the marketing aspects of TRON demonstrate a cluelessness regarding Gen-X culture, I have been anticipating a sequel to the original TRON film since the day I left the theater in 1982. Contrary to what the opening line of the snide Variety article discussing TRON: LEGACY might lead you to believe, the first TRON film did quite well. According to BoxOfficeMojo, the original film had a cost of $17 million and made $33 million in domestic box office -- a moderate success. This figure does not include the sales of video game machines, VHS tapes, DVDs, or any of the other merchandise associated with the film.

Initial under-performance is no sign of a lack of long-term interest. One can excuse executives in 1982 for not being able to see into the future at TRON's legacy, but current executives are right to invest so much time and marketing energy behind the new film.

Now...if only the movie's story will match the effort put into the film in other areas.