This isn't going to be a review of Alien Isolation in the traditional sense for a few reasons. Firstly, I haven't played enough of the game to write a fair and decent review, and secondly, frankly I'm not sure I have much to say other reviews haven't. (In short, retro-future aesthetic is fantastic, game is terrifyingly scary, feels like the original movie, but is very hard and at times unfair). Instead, I want to talk about the game in relation to something that's often bothered me in video games, and that this game finally seems to get right.
I've had an issue with modern gaming for some time now. Not all modern games, but those that aim for that filmic realism, that really want us to make us feel like we're living a film and that the characters are real and breathing, and in short, that's because you straight up murder an awful lot of people in almost every game.
Now, this isn't me being concerned about video game violence. Defeating enemies is a natural part of both an adventure story and a challenging video game, but the issue I have is when a game is trying to make us believe in its world, gunning down two hundred faceless grunts every level begins to feel a little hard to accept. In a more fictionalised world setting, I find I don't mind it so much. For example, Assassin's Creed has some pretty strong gameplay elements and the world is clearly stylised, so it bothers me less than in, say, the Uncharted games where I'm supposed to feel the characters are living, breathing, real people, but that guard number one hundred and seventy six still thinks it's a good idea to attack me after seeing me kill one hundred and seventy five of his previous team mates, and he never stops or hesitates or acts in any way human.
In Alien Isolation, that seems to be changed. Obviously, your primary enemy in the game is the Alien (more on that in a few paragraphs), but its an early encounter with the human enemies that I found very impressive. The game takes place on an old, damaged space station in which the citizens have all begun to riot after an Alien (with a capital A) got on board and started killing people, one by one, as the aliens of that franchise are known to do. The game obviously owes a lot to Bioshock and Systemshock, with disturbing graffiti written on the walls, messages left behind implying the downfall of this place (although unlike in Bioshock, the space station was never a utopia) and small groups of survivors who will do anything to protect themselves. What's different is that these people are doing this out of fear, not some kind of crazy cult group or anything like that, and they behave like it.
Early on in the game, you stumble in to a room with another woman in it, trying frantically to open a door. She sees you, panics, and fires off two wild shots before running away to get help. You have a chance to hide before she returns, three others in toe. What makes this encounter interesting, however, is as you hide in the shadows, you listen to them talk, and these people aren't enemies out to kill you. They're civilians, terrified, and they argue about what best to do, and decide their only option is to kill you to stay safe. And as they patrol looking for you, there are no stereotypical taunts, no warnings, they just have tense, frightened conversations, even at one point when I was playing one went up to the only female in the group, to ask how she was doing in a friendly, concerned, older brother manner. And I realised, to these people, I was the bad guy. They were just as frightened as me as I had to avoid them.
I tried to sneak around them, cutting through a command room, but as I went to exit, I heard footsteps approaching. With nowhere to hide, I crouched by the door. At this point in the game, I had no weapons, only my trusty wrench, which I could attack with if forced. And as I saw a man walk through the door, he spotted me. But he didn't respond with the usual 'open fire' habit of an enemy in a game. Gun shaking in his hand, he yelled at me, asking hysterical questions and barking orders. Who was I, don't move, and so on. I knew at any moment he'd fire. I knew that he was innocent, really. The Alien had pushed him to this. But I had no choice in that moment. I struck out with my wrench, hitting him in the face before he could fire. He stumbled back and I beat him to death to save my own skin. And then I ran as the noise attracted the others.
And I heard the girl scream. And then she yelled out to me, about how I had killed her friend, and how she was going to make sure I paid for that. You could hear tears in her voice. I hadn't wanted to kill him, I had been caught out and couldn't sneak past, and now they were out for blood.
Eventually, I separated them all out by sneaking around and killed each one. But what made this encounter so memorable and so well crafted was that at no point did these people feel like random cannon fodder, and the situation I was forced in to was regrettable. I felt bad for killing them, I felt pushed to the edge of my survival skills, I felt this really was 'kill or be killed' between two groups where neither were at fault. This felt like a real encounter with real people that was horrifying and desperate.
I actually looked up online later and found out it is possible to bypass that bit without killing anybody, but I had messed up and had been left with no choice, adding more fluidity to the game. But it really stuck with me as a moment that felt like it could actually belong in a film, where the enemies felt real and every death and every fight felt meaningful.
This carries over to the Alien itself. In the game, there's only one, and it hunts you relentlessly. It's a terrifying creature that you can't kill and you can't stop. All you can do is run and hide. Again, encounters with the Alien feel meaningful. They're terrifying and it's not just a generic monster, it's a character, a horrifying presence that sends chills down your spine whenever it appears.
And that's what I find games lack when they try to be realistic. Encounters that mean something. When fights become generic it no longer means anything, and it no longer feels realistic or believable, even in a fictional setting. And it's why I've been turned off so many modern video games. Alien Isolation feels like it finally gets it right.
This design ethos feels like it spreads elsewhere in the game. Essentially, it feels they worked very hard to make the world feel very solid and believable. Everything is clunky and seventies sci-fi themed, but also has a very noticeable presence. Your flashlight can give you away, even the sound on your trusty motion tracker, a real life saver, can actually work against you and alert the Alien to your presence, everything is thought out to make this feel like sci-fi, but real sci-fi. You really could believe you're there.
Even if you're not you. Another interesting point with the 'solidity' of the world is the presence of your body in the game. This is a first person game, and you're playing Amanda Ripley, daughter of the heroine of the Alien franchise. You're a reasonably petite young woman, tough, certainly, a mechanic by trade, but no fighter. You see your body when you look down and your arms are a constant factor, never hidden away. I remember feeling a specific shocking feeling of a helplessness at one point when I used my melee attack against one of the rogue synthetics on the ship (another fantastic design idea; the company that runs the space station is so cheap they make non-human looking synthetics, and then market them as being easily identifiable to fight prejudice against androids, a brilliant little bit of lore building for the Alien franchise), and fully expecting it to be a case of 'how many melee hits does this thing take', instead it simply caught my wrist. And I saw Amanda's arm there, my arm, a dainty, skinny, feminine wrist overpowered by the huge masculine robotic grip of the android. I can't ever remember a game that made me suddenly feel so much like I was in another body (and indeed, I remember reading some fascinating experiences when people played this game with the Occulus Rift thanks to that presence).
Out of those who are interested, the android easily bent my arm out of the way and then thoroughly beat me, but I managed to break its grip and run away. But the point is that it was a really interesting gaming moment, to suddenly feel that you're in somebody else's body, and suddenly feel a physical helplessness like that. I mean, don't get me wrong, I have pretty skinny arms too, and would also probably get overpowered by a killer robot, but I never expect it in a video game. I'm too often used to being the toned, muscled hero who can take down anything. And again, it made my character feel so much more real.
I'm not saying this is perfect for every game, by the way. It fits a horror game like a glove. Probably not so much an action game. But I found it fascinating and worth writing about.
Tuesday 9 December 2014
Wednesday 3 December 2014
vs. Cosplaysky
I briefly mentioned Cosplaysky.com in my original blog on the idea of cosplay, and I thought having ordered from them, and had some experience of their customer service, it would be a good idea to do a brief review in case anybody out there stumbled across this blog because of the cosplay discussion, or in case anybody was curious after my last post on the subject.
As I've explained before, Cosplaysky is part of the more reasonable end of the market for costume prices in the field of cosplay, and while it can seem extremely expensive when you're new to the hobby, it's considerably well priced, particularly since you often get full outfits. However, there are a great many Asian based cosplay sites out there, many with varying reputations, and it was only after a brief bit of research and hearing positive things about Cosplaysky, I decided to give them a try.
Settling for a Flynn Rider costume, as I had to play a Disney character to fit with my wife's theme, and frankly, if I'm going to be a Disney character, I'm going to be an amusing and cool one, I decided to order it, not really sure what to expect.
Delivery times were extremely impressive. Since I was ordering a custom made costume, I received the costume within 15 days, which since that included making the thing and then posting it from Asia was very positive.
I was actually nervous about the quality of the costume though. While, as I've said, this isn't a large amount of money to spend for cosplayers, for me, it was an insane amount of money to spend on a single costume, and I was very worried about Cosplaysky's reputation as the 'cheaper' end of the market. I have to say, this was unfounded. The costume arrived, an extremely high quality. For those of you who know Flynn's costume, it includes a waistcoat (or vest, if you're not British), and this was extremely well detailed. In fact, it looked better than on the website itself, with subtle detailing representing the texture of the waistcoat from the film that you couldn't see in the images and impressive looking metal buckles to do it up. It was also fully lined, with a silk like material. This is a major upgrade for costumes here; these are costumes as clothes. While I cannot imagine a situation in which I'd like to wear Flynn Rider's waistcoat in an every day situation, with this, I really could.
It also contained trousers and a shirt, and these were more standard, although comfortable and fitted very well. The shirt itself was made out of a soft, seemingly polyster material rather than perhaps what a traditional shirt would be made out of, but this made it soft and actually helped it fit the look of the animated fabric. The trousers were the perfect colour and fitted very well, although they had no pockets. Something that seems accurate to the film, but a tiny bit frustrating for wearing it as a costume to a convention.
It also came with multiple 'pleather' belts and a pleather satchel. In many ways, this was the second most important part next to the waistcoat, a replica of the satchel alone could cost nearly the same as the costume, and not really having much experience with fake leather, I wasn't sure what to expect. What arrived was again very impressive, with a better texture and look than some real leather items I own. Although the material was reasonably thin, it looked the part, and was functional too, with a decent clasp. This actually was another good reason to pick this costume; if I had to wear something to a convention, having a way of carrying things would be good, and this came in handy. Once again detail came to a point where it was actually more impressive than I expected, with an accurate and very good pattern on the main belt, just like in the film, which I hadn't expected at all, but looked great.
Unfortunately, I did have one issue. While the quality of the costume overall was pretty great, and I really was impressed (and wouldn't hesistate to recommend them in this area; if you want a cosplay costume, they do good quality), I had issues with sizing. As I said, the shirt and trousers fitted perfectly, but unfortunately, for reasons I'm unsure of, the waistcoat was considerably too short. Odd, since the shirt was fine.
Usually, I'd write something like this off as a mis-size and assume there was nothing I could do, but having spent this much money, I thought I'd contact Cosplaysky's customer support, but again, I have to admit, I didn't expect much. What I got surprised me to say the least.
I got a very helpful and very friendly response from a member of staff named Amy. I was a little surprised, expecting at best the usual demand for clothes the wrong size to send it back, pay all postage there and back, and get another one sent out. Instead, Amy at first very politely requested an image, to see the issue. I sent one, and she promptly agreed it was the wrong size, and decided the best course of action was to simply send out another one, the correct size. I didn't even have to return the original. I did have to pay the postage for the replacement size, but given that I would basically end up with two waistcoats out of it, I could hardly complain!
Impressed by the customer service, I happily agreed. Unfortunately, the waistcoat that arrived remained the wrong size (considerably wider, but no longer). Unsure what to do, I decided to try my luck and contact their customer service again. Again, Amy came back to me, as polite as can be, and this time, offered a replacement totally free of charge.
As of writing this blog, I haven't yet received the replacement (to be clear, that's not slow delivery, this correspondence only concluded today), and perhaps when it arrives I'll find more sizing woes, but I was sufficiently surprised and impressed by the friendliness of their customer service and particularly their desire to help correct their mistakes for something that others might find silly (a costume) that I felt it should be included.
So in conclusion, Cosplaysky make great quality items for the price, particularly in comparison to competitors, their delivery times are fantastic and their customer service friendly and extremely helpful. But if you do order from them, watch your sizing options. I suspect, if it'll fit, you might actually be better going for the premade costume sizes, and if not maybe include custom notes to ensure they get the size right. Or ensure you allow yourself plenty of time, their customer service will sort out any issues you have with sizing, it seems, but you may want to allow yourself a few more weeks in case you need to contact them and be sent another item.
I still haven't found, or heard of, a better entry-level cosplay site, and despite my issues, I expect if I ever come to order another cosplay costume, I'll be using them again. So, if my cosplay blog inspired you to seek out your own costumes, check them out. I've been impressed, and that's after they actually got my sizing wrong.
As I've explained before, Cosplaysky is part of the more reasonable end of the market for costume prices in the field of cosplay, and while it can seem extremely expensive when you're new to the hobby, it's considerably well priced, particularly since you often get full outfits. However, there are a great many Asian based cosplay sites out there, many with varying reputations, and it was only after a brief bit of research and hearing positive things about Cosplaysky, I decided to give them a try.
Settling for a Flynn Rider costume, as I had to play a Disney character to fit with my wife's theme, and frankly, if I'm going to be a Disney character, I'm going to be an amusing and cool one, I decided to order it, not really sure what to expect.
Delivery times were extremely impressive. Since I was ordering a custom made costume, I received the costume within 15 days, which since that included making the thing and then posting it from Asia was very positive.
I was actually nervous about the quality of the costume though. While, as I've said, this isn't a large amount of money to spend for cosplayers, for me, it was an insane amount of money to spend on a single costume, and I was very worried about Cosplaysky's reputation as the 'cheaper' end of the market. I have to say, this was unfounded. The costume arrived, an extremely high quality. For those of you who know Flynn's costume, it includes a waistcoat (or vest, if you're not British), and this was extremely well detailed. In fact, it looked better than on the website itself, with subtle detailing representing the texture of the waistcoat from the film that you couldn't see in the images and impressive looking metal buckles to do it up. It was also fully lined, with a silk like material. This is a major upgrade for costumes here; these are costumes as clothes. While I cannot imagine a situation in which I'd like to wear Flynn Rider's waistcoat in an every day situation, with this, I really could.
It also contained trousers and a shirt, and these were more standard, although comfortable and fitted very well. The shirt itself was made out of a soft, seemingly polyster material rather than perhaps what a traditional shirt would be made out of, but this made it soft and actually helped it fit the look of the animated fabric. The trousers were the perfect colour and fitted very well, although they had no pockets. Something that seems accurate to the film, but a tiny bit frustrating for wearing it as a costume to a convention.
It also came with multiple 'pleather' belts and a pleather satchel. In many ways, this was the second most important part next to the waistcoat, a replica of the satchel alone could cost nearly the same as the costume, and not really having much experience with fake leather, I wasn't sure what to expect. What arrived was again very impressive, with a better texture and look than some real leather items I own. Although the material was reasonably thin, it looked the part, and was functional too, with a decent clasp. This actually was another good reason to pick this costume; if I had to wear something to a convention, having a way of carrying things would be good, and this came in handy. Once again detail came to a point where it was actually more impressive than I expected, with an accurate and very good pattern on the main belt, just like in the film, which I hadn't expected at all, but looked great.
Unfortunately, I did have one issue. While the quality of the costume overall was pretty great, and I really was impressed (and wouldn't hesistate to recommend them in this area; if you want a cosplay costume, they do good quality), I had issues with sizing. As I said, the shirt and trousers fitted perfectly, but unfortunately, for reasons I'm unsure of, the waistcoat was considerably too short. Odd, since the shirt was fine.
Usually, I'd write something like this off as a mis-size and assume there was nothing I could do, but having spent this much money, I thought I'd contact Cosplaysky's customer support, but again, I have to admit, I didn't expect much. What I got surprised me to say the least.
I got a very helpful and very friendly response from a member of staff named Amy. I was a little surprised, expecting at best the usual demand for clothes the wrong size to send it back, pay all postage there and back, and get another one sent out. Instead, Amy at first very politely requested an image, to see the issue. I sent one, and she promptly agreed it was the wrong size, and decided the best course of action was to simply send out another one, the correct size. I didn't even have to return the original. I did have to pay the postage for the replacement size, but given that I would basically end up with two waistcoats out of it, I could hardly complain!
Impressed by the customer service, I happily agreed. Unfortunately, the waistcoat that arrived remained the wrong size (considerably wider, but no longer). Unsure what to do, I decided to try my luck and contact their customer service again. Again, Amy came back to me, as polite as can be, and this time, offered a replacement totally free of charge.
As of writing this blog, I haven't yet received the replacement (to be clear, that's not slow delivery, this correspondence only concluded today), and perhaps when it arrives I'll find more sizing woes, but I was sufficiently surprised and impressed by the friendliness of their customer service and particularly their desire to help correct their mistakes for something that others might find silly (a costume) that I felt it should be included.
So in conclusion, Cosplaysky make great quality items for the price, particularly in comparison to competitors, their delivery times are fantastic and their customer service friendly and extremely helpful. But if you do order from them, watch your sizing options. I suspect, if it'll fit, you might actually be better going for the premade costume sizes, and if not maybe include custom notes to ensure they get the size right. Or ensure you allow yourself plenty of time, their customer service will sort out any issues you have with sizing, it seems, but you may want to allow yourself a few more weeks in case you need to contact them and be sent another item.
I still haven't found, or heard of, a better entry-level cosplay site, and despite my issues, I expect if I ever come to order another cosplay costume, I'll be using them again. So, if my cosplay blog inspired you to seek out your own costumes, check them out. I've been impressed, and that's after they actually got my sizing wrong.
Sunday 30 November 2014
vs. Spider-Girl
It's pretty common for most superheroes to have a female version of themselves these days (and in fact, it has been common since well back in the eighties). Often in fact in both 'girl' and 'woman' variations (for example, there's both a Batwoman and Batgirl). But one of the longest running and most successful (in comics at least) female superhero? Spider-girl. It's Marvel's longest running female-led superhero title, and given that she's never appeared in spin off media (Supergirl's been in a film and cartoons, and even Smallville, and Batgirl has been a regular in everything from the 60's TV show through to pretty much every cartoon and appeared in a movie) that's an impressive feat.
But what makes Spider-Girl unique? Well, really it's the same reason she doesn't appear in any spin-offs. Spider-Girl is not a character who functions alongside Spider-man. She doesn't have the problem where she serves as the 'female, not quite as powerful' version of the existing male hero. Because Spider-Girl's storyline has always taken place in one of Marvel's alternative universes, where she's Spider-Man's daughter.
This instantly makes her a very interesting character, as you have a true legacy superhero. The set up of the plot is reasonably simple. Peter Parker and Mary Jane had a daughter, at some point in the past Peter Parker lost a leg in his final fight with the Green Goblin and had to retire as Spider-Man. Now, his daughter, May 'Mayday' Parker is sixteen, and suddenly begins developing her father's powers.
What follows is a very good version of the classic Spider-Man set up. Mayday is still in High School and struggles to hide her secret, balance her social life, homework and superheroing, struggles with lying to her parents (who of course know her secret and try to stop her from doing it) and generally saving the world. What makes this series more unique, and in my opinion actually superior to a lot of the classic Spider-Man stuff is that Mayday is instantly a more believable character than Peter Parker ever was.
Because of the era it was made in, Peter Parker was always essentially a cartoonish idea of a nerd, a shirt wearing science geek with no social life that never quite felt like a real person. I've been a nerd. I wasn't ever like that. On top of that, he was such a genius he invented all kinds of gadgets that could revolutionise all kinds of world problems but never shares them. I never believed in Peter Parker as a real person much. Particularly not his older, high school 60s version. Mayday, in comparison, is instantly believable, and written in a manner that makes her seem much more real.
She's a popular student at first, well liked, athletic (until she quits sports realising her powers are giving her an edge), considered pretty and friendly, and even reasonably intelligent, scoring decent grades (but not, importantly, inventing super science). And then her life is turned upside down when she develops powers and has to take on the responsibility of battling vampires, demons and the forces of darkness.
Wait, that's not right. I got a bit sidetracked. But the thing that last quote is from? Well, it kind of sums up what this series it. It's Buffy the Vampire Slayer if instead of being a vampire slayer, Buffy discovered she was in fact Spider-Man. Yes, there are some differences, Mayday isn't the stereotypical cheerleader blonde and never was, and her friends never really get involved in the fight as none really know her secret, but the similarity is there.
But it's made more interesting too by the entire idea of a legacy. There are new villains too, but the fact that there's this entire rich history there works really well for the series. Sometimes, things get a bit trite, with far too many heirs and daughters and sons of well known Marvel characters showing up (although it's nice to see this universe's Avengers led by Captain America's daughter, meaning that it's pretty female oriented all round), but over-all it lets things be connected without them feeling like a coincidence. And it allows Peter Parker and Mary Jane, now grown up, adults and working jobs, to still be major characters with their own doubts, lives and personality. It actually feels like a natural progression for the series.
But what annoys me the most? There's a spider-themed superhero out there. Everything in her world has a really good reason to be interconnected. Oh, and she's generally popular in high school and considered to be cool too. You know what?
That would have been perfect for the vibe Sony wanted with their Amazing Spider-Man movies. But instead, we got a far too soon reboot in which they try to connect everything for no good reason, and generally get a lot of the character wrong. It seems like Spider-Girl's greatest nemesis is the 'girl' part of her name.
Female superheroes just continue to get nowhere. Apparently now Sony are planning to do a female oriented Spider-Man spin off, but you can guarantee it won't be the most interesting and popular character in their line-up, because Spider-Girl can't co-exist with Andrew Garfield's Spider-Man, and they're so desperate to make an Avengers-style shared universe they couldn't possibly do something set in another reality.
Which is a real shame. Because for once they could have done something quite good.
But what makes Spider-Girl unique? Well, really it's the same reason she doesn't appear in any spin-offs. Spider-Girl is not a character who functions alongside Spider-man. She doesn't have the problem where she serves as the 'female, not quite as powerful' version of the existing male hero. Because Spider-Girl's storyline has always taken place in one of Marvel's alternative universes, where she's Spider-Man's daughter.
This instantly makes her a very interesting character, as you have a true legacy superhero. The set up of the plot is reasonably simple. Peter Parker and Mary Jane had a daughter, at some point in the past Peter Parker lost a leg in his final fight with the Green Goblin and had to retire as Spider-Man. Now, his daughter, May 'Mayday' Parker is sixteen, and suddenly begins developing her father's powers.
What follows is a very good version of the classic Spider-Man set up. Mayday is still in High School and struggles to hide her secret, balance her social life, homework and superheroing, struggles with lying to her parents (who of course know her secret and try to stop her from doing it) and generally saving the world. What makes this series more unique, and in my opinion actually superior to a lot of the classic Spider-Man stuff is that Mayday is instantly a more believable character than Peter Parker ever was.
Because of the era it was made in, Peter Parker was always essentially a cartoonish idea of a nerd, a shirt wearing science geek with no social life that never quite felt like a real person. I've been a nerd. I wasn't ever like that. On top of that, he was such a genius he invented all kinds of gadgets that could revolutionise all kinds of world problems but never shares them. I never believed in Peter Parker as a real person much. Particularly not his older, high school 60s version. Mayday, in comparison, is instantly believable, and written in a manner that makes her seem much more real.
She's a popular student at first, well liked, athletic (until she quits sports realising her powers are giving her an edge), considered pretty and friendly, and even reasonably intelligent, scoring decent grades (but not, importantly, inventing super science). And then her life is turned upside down when she develops powers and has to take on the responsibility of battling vampires, demons and the forces of darkness.
Wait, that's not right. I got a bit sidetracked. But the thing that last quote is from? Well, it kind of sums up what this series it. It's Buffy the Vampire Slayer if instead of being a vampire slayer, Buffy discovered she was in fact Spider-Man. Yes, there are some differences, Mayday isn't the stereotypical cheerleader blonde and never was, and her friends never really get involved in the fight as none really know her secret, but the similarity is there.
But it's made more interesting too by the entire idea of a legacy. There are new villains too, but the fact that there's this entire rich history there works really well for the series. Sometimes, things get a bit trite, with far too many heirs and daughters and sons of well known Marvel characters showing up (although it's nice to see this universe's Avengers led by Captain America's daughter, meaning that it's pretty female oriented all round), but over-all it lets things be connected without them feeling like a coincidence. And it allows Peter Parker and Mary Jane, now grown up, adults and working jobs, to still be major characters with their own doubts, lives and personality. It actually feels like a natural progression for the series.
But what annoys me the most? There's a spider-themed superhero out there. Everything in her world has a really good reason to be interconnected. Oh, and she's generally popular in high school and considered to be cool too. You know what?
That would have been perfect for the vibe Sony wanted with their Amazing Spider-Man movies. But instead, we got a far too soon reboot in which they try to connect everything for no good reason, and generally get a lot of the character wrong. It seems like Spider-Girl's greatest nemesis is the 'girl' part of her name.
Female superheroes just continue to get nowhere. Apparently now Sony are planning to do a female oriented Spider-Man spin off, but you can guarantee it won't be the most interesting and popular character in their line-up, because Spider-Girl can't co-exist with Andrew Garfield's Spider-Man, and they're so desperate to make an Avengers-style shared universe they couldn't possibly do something set in another reality.
Which is a real shame. Because for once they could have done something quite good.
Sunday 23 November 2014
vs. X-Wing
Allow me to set the scene...
The mission isn't going entirely as planned. It sounded simple in the briefing, I was to scout an Imperial sector of space and report back on my findings. Admiral Akbar had been clear on only one thing; under no circumstances engage the enemy. Scan the ships only, and allow Rebel Intelligence to find out what their next move will be from the data I collect.
At first it had seemed easy, a lot of fire came from the capital ships once they realised I was there, but my nimble A-Wing fighter was fast enough to avoid their fire, and the measly two TIE Fighters they had escorting couldn't keep up with me and stick close to that big frigate at the same time.
But then everything changed. Three Corellian Corvettes dropped out of hyperspace, all Imperial, and I knew I had to scan them too or my mission would be a failure. The problem? They hadn't come alone. Five TIE Fighters and they'd spotted me instantly. I couldn't run, I had to scan those ships, so with them on my tail, I diverted everything I had to my rear shields. I couldn't fire a shot anyway, so I took my weapon systems offline and put everything that wasn't going to my shields in to my engines. If I couldn't shake them, maybe I could outrun them.
Three Corvettes put up a lot of fire themselves though, and those shots would do a lot more damage than TIE Fighter blasts. My world became green blaster fire, and I had to balance my shields, even as I saw my rear deflectors dropping like a stone. I manoeuvred for the rear end of the Corvettes, figuring that with that huge mass of engines they wouldn't be able to get a good shot at me. The fire lessened, but it was still a threat as I passed the first one.
I don't know what hit me. It might have been a TIE or it might have been a stray turbo laser from the Corvette, but in one hit, my rear shields were gone. I frantically tried to divert everything I had to them, but it was no use. They were shot out. Sacrificing speed for survival, I rerouted everything to getting the shields to recharge, but it was too slow. They didn't even flicker as fire came in around me.
I passed the second Corvette, my scanner reading it and filling my data screen with details. One more. I closed on it, knowing that I'd make it now by the skin of my teeth. Only, at the last second, I'm hit! The console in my cockpit explodes, the gauges showing my power read out shatter and spark, and for a moment, I think it's all over...
...but no! I'm still alive. My ship is crippled, my cockpit battered, but I'm still flying my crippled fighter. And I passed the Corvette! I glance down to see if I got the scan, only to see three words looking back at me.
'Targeting computer offline'.
That last hit took out the one vital system I needed. I dive in to damage control, looking at what I can do to get it back online. I start the repairs. Seven minutes. I have eleven minutes to complete the mission and get back to base. It's going to be close...
That is if I can survive. TIEs are all over me now, and I definitely can't take another hit. They're all behind me though, and with my rear shields offline, I realise I don't need power to my deflectors anymore. Instead, I divert it all to the engines. TIE Fighters are fast, but with everything available pumped to the engines, my A-Wing is faster. I just have to hope...
...and I'm right! The TIEs must have orders not to leave the Corvettes, because they break off. All but one. He must be determined. But if I can just keep out running him...
It's a tense few moments in space, green blaster shots flying by my cockpit as I try to outrun him, and then suddenly something unexpected happens. The targeting computer comes back online! The repairs must have gone better than estimated. I turn around and run head first at the TIE, my front deflectors still functioning. I zoom by it without taking a hit, and now fix myself on the Corvette. I have one shot at this, but with the other TIEs in front of me, I have a chance. They fire, of course, but I'm moving like lightning now. They can't stop me. I get the report! That's it! Time to get out of here.
I have to make the jump to hyperspace. The problem is I can't amongst all of this fire. Jumping to hyperspace ain't like dusting crops, it takes time, and it leaves me vulnerable. I have to get clear. At this pace, that should be fine.
And then out of nowhere a giant shape drops out of nowhere in front of me. An Imperial Star Destroyer. I divert course just in time, and now know that I don't have a choice. I'm in serious trouble. I engage the hyperdrive, and hang defensive for a moment, the TIEs and Star Destroyer closing in on me...
...and then I'm gone. Mission complete.
.......That was what happened in the second mission on X-Wing, a PC game from 1993. That's right, a twenty one year old PC game. And I haven't exaggerated anything, and nor were any of the events (bar the arrival of the ships at the correct times) scripted.
They really don't make games like that anymore.
The mission isn't going entirely as planned. It sounded simple in the briefing, I was to scout an Imperial sector of space and report back on my findings. Admiral Akbar had been clear on only one thing; under no circumstances engage the enemy. Scan the ships only, and allow Rebel Intelligence to find out what their next move will be from the data I collect.
At first it had seemed easy, a lot of fire came from the capital ships once they realised I was there, but my nimble A-Wing fighter was fast enough to avoid their fire, and the measly two TIE Fighters they had escorting couldn't keep up with me and stick close to that big frigate at the same time.
But then everything changed. Three Corellian Corvettes dropped out of hyperspace, all Imperial, and I knew I had to scan them too or my mission would be a failure. The problem? They hadn't come alone. Five TIE Fighters and they'd spotted me instantly. I couldn't run, I had to scan those ships, so with them on my tail, I diverted everything I had to my rear shields. I couldn't fire a shot anyway, so I took my weapon systems offline and put everything that wasn't going to my shields in to my engines. If I couldn't shake them, maybe I could outrun them.
Three Corvettes put up a lot of fire themselves though, and those shots would do a lot more damage than TIE Fighter blasts. My world became green blaster fire, and I had to balance my shields, even as I saw my rear deflectors dropping like a stone. I manoeuvred for the rear end of the Corvettes, figuring that with that huge mass of engines they wouldn't be able to get a good shot at me. The fire lessened, but it was still a threat as I passed the first one.
I don't know what hit me. It might have been a TIE or it might have been a stray turbo laser from the Corvette, but in one hit, my rear shields were gone. I frantically tried to divert everything I had to them, but it was no use. They were shot out. Sacrificing speed for survival, I rerouted everything to getting the shields to recharge, but it was too slow. They didn't even flicker as fire came in around me.
I passed the second Corvette, my scanner reading it and filling my data screen with details. One more. I closed on it, knowing that I'd make it now by the skin of my teeth. Only, at the last second, I'm hit! The console in my cockpit explodes, the gauges showing my power read out shatter and spark, and for a moment, I think it's all over...
...but no! I'm still alive. My ship is crippled, my cockpit battered, but I'm still flying my crippled fighter. And I passed the Corvette! I glance down to see if I got the scan, only to see three words looking back at me.
'Targeting computer offline'.
That last hit took out the one vital system I needed. I dive in to damage control, looking at what I can do to get it back online. I start the repairs. Seven minutes. I have eleven minutes to complete the mission and get back to base. It's going to be close...
That is if I can survive. TIEs are all over me now, and I definitely can't take another hit. They're all behind me though, and with my rear shields offline, I realise I don't need power to my deflectors anymore. Instead, I divert it all to the engines. TIE Fighters are fast, but with everything available pumped to the engines, my A-Wing is faster. I just have to hope...
...and I'm right! The TIEs must have orders not to leave the Corvettes, because they break off. All but one. He must be determined. But if I can just keep out running him...
It's a tense few moments in space, green blaster shots flying by my cockpit as I try to outrun him, and then suddenly something unexpected happens. The targeting computer comes back online! The repairs must have gone better than estimated. I turn around and run head first at the TIE, my front deflectors still functioning. I zoom by it without taking a hit, and now fix myself on the Corvette. I have one shot at this, but with the other TIEs in front of me, I have a chance. They fire, of course, but I'm moving like lightning now. They can't stop me. I get the report! That's it! Time to get out of here.
I have to make the jump to hyperspace. The problem is I can't amongst all of this fire. Jumping to hyperspace ain't like dusting crops, it takes time, and it leaves me vulnerable. I have to get clear. At this pace, that should be fine.
And then out of nowhere a giant shape drops out of nowhere in front of me. An Imperial Star Destroyer. I divert course just in time, and now know that I don't have a choice. I'm in serious trouble. I engage the hyperdrive, and hang defensive for a moment, the TIEs and Star Destroyer closing in on me...
...and then I'm gone. Mission complete.
.......That was what happened in the second mission on X-Wing, a PC game from 1993. That's right, a twenty one year old PC game. And I haven't exaggerated anything, and nor were any of the events (bar the arrival of the ships at the correct times) scripted.
They really don't make games like that anymore.
Saturday 22 November 2014
vs. The Hunger Games: Mockingjay Part One
(Slight spoilers ahead, nothing serious, if you intend to see this movie).
The Hunger Games is an interesting franchise to me, mainly because it's one of those things I neither love nor hate. I've not read the books and don't tend to rewatch the films, but they're not bad films. I've often joked that The Hunger Games should have the slogan:
If your girlfriend drags you to the cinema to see one film this year, make sure it's The Hunger Games.
Because, well, it's better than a lot of the alternatives.
There are real stakes found in The Hunger Games movies, some very good character development (Katniss remains one of my favourite female protagonists of all time) and concepts, but I've always felt that the previous films couldn't quite escape their 'young adult' origins. Not to say that's a bad thing, there's often a lot of bile on the internet for the 'young adult' age bracket or 'young adult' novels, but it's a legitimate target audience. Only at my age, I become less interested in that area.
A lot of first two The Hunger Games films are a satire of celebrity culture, and it's good satire, clever satire, but at the end of the day, it is still spending an awful lot of time concerned with what our heroine will be wearing, how to dress her up and style her, and oh look how famous she is and isn't this just what it's like for X-Factor contestants? Given the bleak backdrop, as I said, it is an intelligent satire, a dark look at a potential conclusion for our reality TV show obsessed media, but it still to me feels as if it is designed to resonate with a younger audience, and often the obsession with fashion and style can feel, in my opinion, a little patronising, as if the films are trying to be intentionally 'girly' to offset the later violence.
And while the films leave no doubt that the government that have set up these games is an evil one, we understand just how dark and brutal they are, they're almost a background detail, used to set up the story of the games and everything our heroine goes through, when all the time you think there is a wider story there. How does a government like that maintain control, why aren't people rebelling? Surely there's more of a story here than the yearly TV show they run?
And then Mockingjay arrives.
I didn't think they'd ever go down that route. I thought it was what an adult audience might think while watching these films, imagining the potential of what must be going on with this government off screen, but Mockingjay seems to proudly reject the 'Young' in 'Young Adult' and push this story as dark as it can, and it should go. This is no longer a movie about celebrities. It's no longer a movie about TV shows. This is now a war movie. And it really shows.
Mockingjay Part One opens after the facist government have cracked down on the populace after seeing the escape from the previous Hunger Games (the games in the film, not the movie) as an act of rebellion. In return, they've wiped out an entire district (one of only twelve, making you wonder just how they're expecting their people to survive if they can wipe out roughly 1/13th of the remaining human population, but this is an evil empire, what do you expect?), but this has only strengthened people's resolve to rebel.
The problem? Katniss, our heroine, didn't know anything about it. She's become the face of the rebellion, but through the manipulations of others. It'd be like if Luke Skywalker blew up the Death Star by accident. And while on paper this can make it sound like Katniss is portrayed perhaps in a weak manner, it doesn't work like that in the film. We do, at first, see her traumatised from the games, but this really works. I often also talk about my hatred of writing strong female characters as being female characters with no flaws whatsoever. They don't bleed or get hurt and seem untouchable. That to me is not good writing. A great female character should suffer just as a great male character does. My favourite male heroes are ones like Indiana Jones and John McClane, who really bleed, suffer but manage to win in the end. They get beaten up and they lose at times, but they power through. Katniss fits that mould perfectly throughout all the films, suffering, bleeding but winning.
Instead, she instantly becomes more relatable, forceful and heroic for it. The big war coming asks moral questions, often it seems like the rebels are just as manipulative as the villains, but Katniss is in it for personal reasons. Protect her family and save hostages held by the capital. One is her potential love interest, yes, but the film makes sure that Katniss wants to rescue all the hostages, and not just him. And as the film progresses, and she sees the carnage brought on by the enemy, she becomes the hero they all want to pretend she is, morally outraged, skilled and ready to fight. Even if she never feels like she's that person, which again makes her more relatable.
The media satire is still there, but somewhat more subtle here. The rebels primary weapon against the evil Capitol is not any armaments from their secret stash of weapons (and I have to admit, I was a little disappointed by the 'we have an entire heavily armed rebel army that's just been hiding this whole time' revelation) but propaganda. Their original intention in rescuing Katniss was to shoot her on a dodgy blue screen and get her to read cheesy lines to inspire the troops. Meanwhile, the Capitol fights back by making captured survivor Peeta (how I wish he was just called 'Peter') in to a spokesman against the war, cashing in on his celebrity status. We see criticisms of the Rebel leader for not being charismatic enough or giving flashy enough speeches, Philip Seymour Hoffman's character is one of the rebel leaders, but there practically as a media spin doctor than in any leadership capacity. But this feels less blatant than in the previous films, and remains believable. A particularly clever nod comes when the first official rebel piece of propaganda is shown, and the font, logo and style of the video is practically identical to the film trailers for the Hunger Games franchise. Why wouldn't, in a media obsessed culture, propaganda resemble film trailers?
The film makes some brave choices direction wise too. In a sequence that I'm sure sceptics will call budget saving, our heroine and the cast survive a bombing run on their current home underground in bunkers, only we never cut away to see the actual bombing. We only see reactions, dust falling from the rooftops, and huddled survivors. We see the result of the devastation when we emerge, but none of the actual horror. The entire sequence is sold on the acting alone (and this film is Jennifer Lawrence's best performance, and she's someone with a back catalogue of very strong performances) and it makes the scenario feel much more realistic and believable, and helps you relate to the characters a lot more. These decisions are repeated throughout the movie, where the audience is kept in the dark along with Katniss as often things go wrong or change and we don't find what has happened until she does. This again actually works really well in putting the audience in her position, while lending the film some integrity. A lesser director would be tempted to use these moments for big marketable action sequences, but here it's resisted.
Easily the strongest entry in the franchise yet, a film that makes the dubious decision to split the finale in to two movies seem logical (although of course, a lot of that depends on how the second part goes), it never felt tired, dragged out or dull (unlike The Hobbit movies, a franchise that definitely shouldn't have been split in three), and is definitely worth a watch.
You know, actually by your own free will, instead of being dragged to see it by your girlfriend.
The Hunger Games is an interesting franchise to me, mainly because it's one of those things I neither love nor hate. I've not read the books and don't tend to rewatch the films, but they're not bad films. I've often joked that The Hunger Games should have the slogan:
If your girlfriend drags you to the cinema to see one film this year, make sure it's The Hunger Games.
Because, well, it's better than a lot of the alternatives.
There are real stakes found in The Hunger Games movies, some very good character development (Katniss remains one of my favourite female protagonists of all time) and concepts, but I've always felt that the previous films couldn't quite escape their 'young adult' origins. Not to say that's a bad thing, there's often a lot of bile on the internet for the 'young adult' age bracket or 'young adult' novels, but it's a legitimate target audience. Only at my age, I become less interested in that area.
A lot of first two The Hunger Games films are a satire of celebrity culture, and it's good satire, clever satire, but at the end of the day, it is still spending an awful lot of time concerned with what our heroine will be wearing, how to dress her up and style her, and oh look how famous she is and isn't this just what it's like for X-Factor contestants? Given the bleak backdrop, as I said, it is an intelligent satire, a dark look at a potential conclusion for our reality TV show obsessed media, but it still to me feels as if it is designed to resonate with a younger audience, and often the obsession with fashion and style can feel, in my opinion, a little patronising, as if the films are trying to be intentionally 'girly' to offset the later violence.
And while the films leave no doubt that the government that have set up these games is an evil one, we understand just how dark and brutal they are, they're almost a background detail, used to set up the story of the games and everything our heroine goes through, when all the time you think there is a wider story there. How does a government like that maintain control, why aren't people rebelling? Surely there's more of a story here than the yearly TV show they run?
And then Mockingjay arrives.
I didn't think they'd ever go down that route. I thought it was what an adult audience might think while watching these films, imagining the potential of what must be going on with this government off screen, but Mockingjay seems to proudly reject the 'Young' in 'Young Adult' and push this story as dark as it can, and it should go. This is no longer a movie about celebrities. It's no longer a movie about TV shows. This is now a war movie. And it really shows.
Mockingjay Part One opens after the facist government have cracked down on the populace after seeing the escape from the previous Hunger Games (the games in the film, not the movie) as an act of rebellion. In return, they've wiped out an entire district (one of only twelve, making you wonder just how they're expecting their people to survive if they can wipe out roughly 1/13th of the remaining human population, but this is an evil empire, what do you expect?), but this has only strengthened people's resolve to rebel.
The problem? Katniss, our heroine, didn't know anything about it. She's become the face of the rebellion, but through the manipulations of others. It'd be like if Luke Skywalker blew up the Death Star by accident. And while on paper this can make it sound like Katniss is portrayed perhaps in a weak manner, it doesn't work like that in the film. We do, at first, see her traumatised from the games, but this really works. I often also talk about my hatred of writing strong female characters as being female characters with no flaws whatsoever. They don't bleed or get hurt and seem untouchable. That to me is not good writing. A great female character should suffer just as a great male character does. My favourite male heroes are ones like Indiana Jones and John McClane, who really bleed, suffer but manage to win in the end. They get beaten up and they lose at times, but they power through. Katniss fits that mould perfectly throughout all the films, suffering, bleeding but winning.
Instead, she instantly becomes more relatable, forceful and heroic for it. The big war coming asks moral questions, often it seems like the rebels are just as manipulative as the villains, but Katniss is in it for personal reasons. Protect her family and save hostages held by the capital. One is her potential love interest, yes, but the film makes sure that Katniss wants to rescue all the hostages, and not just him. And as the film progresses, and she sees the carnage brought on by the enemy, she becomes the hero they all want to pretend she is, morally outraged, skilled and ready to fight. Even if she never feels like she's that person, which again makes her more relatable.
The media satire is still there, but somewhat more subtle here. The rebels primary weapon against the evil Capitol is not any armaments from their secret stash of weapons (and I have to admit, I was a little disappointed by the 'we have an entire heavily armed rebel army that's just been hiding this whole time' revelation) but propaganda. Their original intention in rescuing Katniss was to shoot her on a dodgy blue screen and get her to read cheesy lines to inspire the troops. Meanwhile, the Capitol fights back by making captured survivor Peeta (how I wish he was just called 'Peter') in to a spokesman against the war, cashing in on his celebrity status. We see criticisms of the Rebel leader for not being charismatic enough or giving flashy enough speeches, Philip Seymour Hoffman's character is one of the rebel leaders, but there practically as a media spin doctor than in any leadership capacity. But this feels less blatant than in the previous films, and remains believable. A particularly clever nod comes when the first official rebel piece of propaganda is shown, and the font, logo and style of the video is practically identical to the film trailers for the Hunger Games franchise. Why wouldn't, in a media obsessed culture, propaganda resemble film trailers?
The film makes some brave choices direction wise too. In a sequence that I'm sure sceptics will call budget saving, our heroine and the cast survive a bombing run on their current home underground in bunkers, only we never cut away to see the actual bombing. We only see reactions, dust falling from the rooftops, and huddled survivors. We see the result of the devastation when we emerge, but none of the actual horror. The entire sequence is sold on the acting alone (and this film is Jennifer Lawrence's best performance, and she's someone with a back catalogue of very strong performances) and it makes the scenario feel much more realistic and believable, and helps you relate to the characters a lot more. These decisions are repeated throughout the movie, where the audience is kept in the dark along with Katniss as often things go wrong or change and we don't find what has happened until she does. This again actually works really well in putting the audience in her position, while lending the film some integrity. A lesser director would be tempted to use these moments for big marketable action sequences, but here it's resisted.
Easily the strongest entry in the franchise yet, a film that makes the dubious decision to split the finale in to two movies seem logical (although of course, a lot of that depends on how the second part goes), it never felt tired, dragged out or dull (unlike The Hobbit movies, a franchise that definitely shouldn't have been split in three), and is definitely worth a watch.
You know, actually by your own free will, instead of being dragged to see it by your girlfriend.
Thursday 20 November 2014
vs. Metahumour
Metahumour is one of my favourite forms of comedy, and I thought something worth writing about given its increase in popularity of late, and when it works for me, and when it doesn't. Metahumour, at least in the context I refer to it, is humour based around the acknowledgement of the fiction of the joke.
A great example of this can be found in the 21 Jump Street movie, where the captain character points out that they've resurrected the 'Jump Street program' from the eighties because nobody in the police department has any original ideas anymore. Of course, this is a blatant joke based around the fact that the movie is a remake of an old 80s TV show, something frequently done in Hollywood where there are very few original concepts.
The thing that makes these gags work, and makes me love them so much, is that they can also work within the world of the film (or setting) itself. It's not as obvious as breaking the fourth wall (it doesn't actually establish the world the characters are in as fictional), it just makes a reference that has an additional meaning to the audience.
Sometimes, this can be pushed, and it tends to ruin the joke slightly to me. For example, there's a brilliant joke that gets slightly ruined in the credits of 22 Jump Street (spoilers, obviously, if you haven't seen it) where after a series of fake trailers for the idea the franchise keeps running, Jonah Hill is swapped out for Seth Rogan, referencing the idea of the cast eventually being recast. This is really funny, particularly since the two actors work on similar projects (sometimes the same project), clearly know each other and have similar comedy styles. But the joke then is ruined because they constantly reference how he 'looks different', and have the characters on screen discuss the change subtly (like they think you can't hear). To me, that joke would work a lot better if it played as a real trailer, without heavy referencing to what had actually happened. It'd be more subtle, but frankly it's so obvious anyway subtlety isn't needed.
That's not to say that sometimes breaking the fourth wall can't make something hilarious, it just needs to be done in the right context. One of my favourite movies for the use of metahumour is Black Dynamite, because it's supposed to be a terribly made movie. There's almost two characters played by everybody in that film, the character of the movie, and the actor playing them in this terrible 70s movie. They often break character without becoming the true actors themselves, and it makes it even funnier. Possibly my favourite fourth wall breaking gag of all time comes in that movie, when in one fight scene one of the heroes accidently strikes the gigantic guy he's fighting, and you can see the actor becomes furious. One very dodgy cut later, and the fight continues, but against a completely different extra. Immediately there's a whole story of what happened off camera, and the joke becomes utterly hilarious.
But it's a dangerous weapon, metahumour. It can be funny, but you need it in the right context. In a movie designed to be a bad movie, breaking the fourth wall works. In a comedy where you're expected to at least buy in to the world, it's better to lean on the references. And of course, it's easy to over do it. I'm a massive fan of Doctor Who, but in the last few series there's been a tendency to seriously over-egg the joke of having characters actually ask the Doctor 'Doctor who?' as a question, including having thousands of Daleks chanting 'DOC-TOR WHO!?' over and over again, or having Matt Smith giggle and make somebody ask him it several times because he 'likes the sound of it'. Things like this just don't work. Doctor Who is a comical show, but it also expects you to take its universe seriously, the humour stems from the characters behaving in comical ways and the way the universe can contain anything, not from obvious comedy jokes like this, and not only does it take you out of the experience, but it's not even a funny joke.
So I love metahumour when its done well, but it really does need to be used sparingly, in the right context, and to most crucially of all, actually be funny. I know that seems kind of obvious, but since its one of my favourite comedy styles, I thought it was worth looking at some examples, and, well, I needed something to post!
A great example of this can be found in the 21 Jump Street movie, where the captain character points out that they've resurrected the 'Jump Street program' from the eighties because nobody in the police department has any original ideas anymore. Of course, this is a blatant joke based around the fact that the movie is a remake of an old 80s TV show, something frequently done in Hollywood where there are very few original concepts.
The thing that makes these gags work, and makes me love them so much, is that they can also work within the world of the film (or setting) itself. It's not as obvious as breaking the fourth wall (it doesn't actually establish the world the characters are in as fictional), it just makes a reference that has an additional meaning to the audience.
Sometimes, this can be pushed, and it tends to ruin the joke slightly to me. For example, there's a brilliant joke that gets slightly ruined in the credits of 22 Jump Street (spoilers, obviously, if you haven't seen it) where after a series of fake trailers for the idea the franchise keeps running, Jonah Hill is swapped out for Seth Rogan, referencing the idea of the cast eventually being recast. This is really funny, particularly since the two actors work on similar projects (sometimes the same project), clearly know each other and have similar comedy styles. But the joke then is ruined because they constantly reference how he 'looks different', and have the characters on screen discuss the change subtly (like they think you can't hear). To me, that joke would work a lot better if it played as a real trailer, without heavy referencing to what had actually happened. It'd be more subtle, but frankly it's so obvious anyway subtlety isn't needed.
That's not to say that sometimes breaking the fourth wall can't make something hilarious, it just needs to be done in the right context. One of my favourite movies for the use of metahumour is Black Dynamite, because it's supposed to be a terribly made movie. There's almost two characters played by everybody in that film, the character of the movie, and the actor playing them in this terrible 70s movie. They often break character without becoming the true actors themselves, and it makes it even funnier. Possibly my favourite fourth wall breaking gag of all time comes in that movie, when in one fight scene one of the heroes accidently strikes the gigantic guy he's fighting, and you can see the actor becomes furious. One very dodgy cut later, and the fight continues, but against a completely different extra. Immediately there's a whole story of what happened off camera, and the joke becomes utterly hilarious.
But it's a dangerous weapon, metahumour. It can be funny, but you need it in the right context. In a movie designed to be a bad movie, breaking the fourth wall works. In a comedy where you're expected to at least buy in to the world, it's better to lean on the references. And of course, it's easy to over do it. I'm a massive fan of Doctor Who, but in the last few series there's been a tendency to seriously over-egg the joke of having characters actually ask the Doctor 'Doctor who?' as a question, including having thousands of Daleks chanting 'DOC-TOR WHO!?' over and over again, or having Matt Smith giggle and make somebody ask him it several times because he 'likes the sound of it'. Things like this just don't work. Doctor Who is a comical show, but it also expects you to take its universe seriously, the humour stems from the characters behaving in comical ways and the way the universe can contain anything, not from obvious comedy jokes like this, and not only does it take you out of the experience, but it's not even a funny joke.
So I love metahumour when its done well, but it really does need to be used sparingly, in the right context, and to most crucially of all, actually be funny. I know that seems kind of obvious, but since its one of my favourite comedy styles, I thought it was worth looking at some examples, and, well, I needed something to post!
Wednesday 19 November 2014
vs. Tangled vs. Frozen
Somewhat following on from the post below, our eventual Disney costumes made me think about the movies they were based on. Namely, Tangled and Frozen. They're probably the most successful 'classic' Disney films of the 21st Century, in that they resemble the traditional fairy tale retold as an animated musical.
Frozen, certainly, which not only represents a massively successful Disney film, but perhaps the movie with the widest cultural impact of the 21st Century so far. And I'm aware that's probably both shocking and slightly depressing to a lot of people, but not since The Matrix, or perhaps shockingly, even Star Wars in 1977, that there's been a movie with such a wide cultural impact (perhaps there's an argument for The Dark Knight, but that might be a blog for another day). That film is everywhere. Awards ceremonies for live performances, X-Factor song auditions, it's on the radio, it's in every toy shop, there's t-shirts and furniture, internet memes and cosplay and long running jokes and just about everything you can imagine. Of course, having a popular soundtrack helps, but I struggle to think of a film that made it quite so far in to every aspect of the public consciousness.
Being generous, in comparison, the response to Tangled was mostly surprise that it didn't suck. At that point, nobody thought much of the in-house Disney productions, with a long run of average movies under its belt, and its last attempt to return to classical animation in The Princess and the Frog a commercial disappointment, and at least a slight critical one. But it kick started what a lot of people now call the Disney Renaissance (a name also given to the time in the late 80s and early 90s when Disney movies were doing fantastically) in that the recent slew of Disney movies have been considered pretty good films. (That being Tangled, Wreck-It-Ralph, Frozen and now Big Hero 6).
The question here though is, separated from all the hype, which is actually the better movie? Personally, I don't think it's as clear cut as their popularity makes out. And yes, I am aware it's odd to be looking at Disney movies in this level of detail, but this is what married life has done to me.
On the surface, I'd actually go with the crowd on this one. Frozen has an awful lot to like about it. Stepping away from the songs that have had such a large part in making the film famous, as the quality of songs in a film isn't something I personally look at, it's a film with a reasonable solid plot, two strong, likeable female protagonists, some impressive visuals and a nice simple story that children can enjoy but that resonates on a deeper level for those older.
There's an awful lot out there on how you can describe Elsa's powers as a metaphor for everything from discovering your sexuality to representing her first period to being her coming out as gay, and since Frozen probably has more words written on it than the Bible at this point in time, I won't bother to repeat the discussions, apart from to say they are actually all legitimate readings. I see where people are coming from, and that immediately gives the film a deeper resonance with a lot of people. (It also explains why Elsa is such a popular character, despite, in my opinion, being the most boring character in the film, as I'll go on to explain later on).
But on top of that, it has a heroine who is proactive and heroic, but allowed to be goofy and funny. Who tries to do the right thing and who drives the plot, but isn't written to just be a male character played by a female. Anna, who is really the star of the movie, is a great female lead. Everything she shows makes a likeable and yet strong lead character. Strength, of course, not equating to physical ability (Anna's not the best at that stuff, but that makes most people like her more), but more to her drive, her beliefs and how she goes about them. I've argued before, off this blog mainly, that my biggest bug bear with female characters in film and TV is either making them useless and a damsel or making them 'strong' by making them both flawless and physically violent, never to be touched and never to show any flaws. A strong, determined female lead who also can show vulnerability is something I appreciate, and something we definitely see in the lead character.
Tangled, by comparison, seems a lot shallower. The story is actually rife for an adaptation that has deep meaning, a sheltered girl heads out in to the world for the first time, but this film plays it mostly straight. It works as something of a celebration of innocence over cynicism (Rapunzel wins over just about everybody but her evil step mother through her pure naivety, sweetness and innocence while Flynn Rider's cynicism and sarcasm only ever makes things worse), and perhaps you could accomplish a meta-textual reading suggesting that is a defence of Disney's approach to film in general, but it's not really something as in your face as 'Let It Go' is for.. well, whatever you choose to believe it represents.
However, the characterisation is strong in this film too. Rapunzel, easily the archetypical damsel in distress in fairy tales, here is recast as excitable, naïve but capable. Her reason for never leaving her tower isn't because she can't escape it, but because at first she has loyalty to the person she believes is her mother, and then secondly because she doesn't know where to go. Flynn Rider is not her rescuer, but a man black mailed in to being her tour guide. And Flynn, despite being shown to be quick witted, funny and physically capable, quite literally never successfully solves a situation without Rapunzel's help. He never wins a fight, none of his plans ever pan out and he's constantly rescued by Rapunzel herself. If you read a summary of the film, it's easy to imagine Rapunzel in the typical Disney princess role, with Flynn as the heroic lead, but in truth, it's nearly the opposite. And even when Rapunzel is eventually 'kidnapped' at the end (returned to her mother, and even then that's because she hasn't quite worked out she's evil yet, something she does figure out on her own once she's back), so is Flynn, and he needs to be rescued before he can go and rescue her. And when he does... he fails and actually gets killed.
Good work, Prince Charming.
He makes a final heroic sacrifice, of course (cutting off Rapunzel's magic hair), but it's the type of sacrifice you might see the damsel make in a more traditional movie. The roles still feel inverted, despite Flynn's traditionally 'heroic' tendencies (he's the classic quick witted thief). Frozen, of course, also famously inverts Disney stereotypes, with the reveal of the true villain being entirely based on essentially mocking Disney's old 'love at first sight' stereotypes. And it's worth pointing out neither film accepts 'marriage just after having met' as an acceptable ending. Flynn and Rapunzel marry after 'years and years of asking' and Kristoff and Anna only just share their first kiss at the end of the movie.
But Frozen also has drawbacks that I feel Tangled doesn't. Firstly, its humour is worn much more on its sleeve, it's less witty and sarcastic and more earnest and slapstick, and in doing so, there's few laugh out loud moments. Those that do come come from Olaf the Snowman, the traditional comedy sidekick who, unfortunately, also manages to be a little irritating. He's used sparingly and a good example of a decent comedy sidekick, but you can't help but feel he detracts a little from the seriousness of some situations. He gets some genuinely very very funny bits, but his overall presence tends to make the film feel much more childish than it needs to be (and yes, I am aware I'm talking about Disney films).
Tangled also has funny characters, but they're approached in a slightly different way. Most of the comedy comes from Flynn Rider himself, who is of course also one of the leads, and is in the form of wit and sarcasm. It's amusing, often because it references what the audience is thinking, but also fits in to the universe without being quite so distracting. The sword fighting horse that follows him on the other hand is as absurd as it sounds, but since the characters all treat him seriously, it actually works without disruption somewhat better. Early scenes do tend to rely on slapstick a little as well, but they're so brutally harsh on the character (poor Flynn should be very, very dead in the first twenty minutes of this movie) they're not quite standard affairs.
Ultimately though, I end up thinking of characterisation. And while I've praised Anna's characterisation, the rest of the Frozen cast suffer. Kristoff, the love interest, is a hard working nice guy with a level of wit, but he's not exceptionally interesting. And Elsa, as I've said before, is problematic. Character design would have you believe she becomes a liberated, perhaps flirtatious, free spirit, but she's written to remain as stoic, formal and responsible as ever. She never lightens up, not really, and so remains the stiff, responsible older sister in contrast to what they seem to want with the visuals.
Put out of your head for a moment what you know of the film, and look at this image:
That look doesn't fit the character. And the rest just appear bland. In fact, if you compare the DVD covers of the films, you can see the problem.
Frozen gives us:
Here we have four characters standing around with bland, pleasant smiles, and a funny snowman. It hardly looks like an exciting movie, and shows that these characters don't have much of an edge. Nothing here makes me want to know what's going on with these characters, who they are, or what their stories are.
Tangled gives us:
There's a girl ready to wield her hair in combat like it's some kind of set of nunchucks or a whip with a confident, aggressive smirk on her face. There's a man wielding a frying pan for some reason, again smirking. And there's an aggressive horse. With a sword in its mouth. This shows three characters (four, if you count Pascal the chameleon) with interesting expressions, tons of character, in what seems to be a bizarre situation.
And I think it shows why I prefer the characters in Tangled.
Ultimately, both are good Disney films, and I'm glad modern Disney is providing decent films for children these days. And I've put far more thought in to these than I ever imagined I would (I blame Kerry and cosplaying the characters), and I'm still not sold on the best. I think I lean towards Tangled for the characters, but they are both legitimately good movies. And if I ever have to think about them in this much detail again, I might just change my mind.
For now though, that's my conclusion. Tomorrow, video games or something to try and restore some of my non-existent credibility.
Frozen, certainly, which not only represents a massively successful Disney film, but perhaps the movie with the widest cultural impact of the 21st Century so far. And I'm aware that's probably both shocking and slightly depressing to a lot of people, but not since The Matrix, or perhaps shockingly, even Star Wars in 1977, that there's been a movie with such a wide cultural impact (perhaps there's an argument for The Dark Knight, but that might be a blog for another day). That film is everywhere. Awards ceremonies for live performances, X-Factor song auditions, it's on the radio, it's in every toy shop, there's t-shirts and furniture, internet memes and cosplay and long running jokes and just about everything you can imagine. Of course, having a popular soundtrack helps, but I struggle to think of a film that made it quite so far in to every aspect of the public consciousness.
Being generous, in comparison, the response to Tangled was mostly surprise that it didn't suck. At that point, nobody thought much of the in-house Disney productions, with a long run of average movies under its belt, and its last attempt to return to classical animation in The Princess and the Frog a commercial disappointment, and at least a slight critical one. But it kick started what a lot of people now call the Disney Renaissance (a name also given to the time in the late 80s and early 90s when Disney movies were doing fantastically) in that the recent slew of Disney movies have been considered pretty good films. (That being Tangled, Wreck-It-Ralph, Frozen and now Big Hero 6).
The question here though is, separated from all the hype, which is actually the better movie? Personally, I don't think it's as clear cut as their popularity makes out. And yes, I am aware it's odd to be looking at Disney movies in this level of detail, but this is what married life has done to me.
On the surface, I'd actually go with the crowd on this one. Frozen has an awful lot to like about it. Stepping away from the songs that have had such a large part in making the film famous, as the quality of songs in a film isn't something I personally look at, it's a film with a reasonable solid plot, two strong, likeable female protagonists, some impressive visuals and a nice simple story that children can enjoy but that resonates on a deeper level for those older.
There's an awful lot out there on how you can describe Elsa's powers as a metaphor for everything from discovering your sexuality to representing her first period to being her coming out as gay, and since Frozen probably has more words written on it than the Bible at this point in time, I won't bother to repeat the discussions, apart from to say they are actually all legitimate readings. I see where people are coming from, and that immediately gives the film a deeper resonance with a lot of people. (It also explains why Elsa is such a popular character, despite, in my opinion, being the most boring character in the film, as I'll go on to explain later on).
But on top of that, it has a heroine who is proactive and heroic, but allowed to be goofy and funny. Who tries to do the right thing and who drives the plot, but isn't written to just be a male character played by a female. Anna, who is really the star of the movie, is a great female lead. Everything she shows makes a likeable and yet strong lead character. Strength, of course, not equating to physical ability (Anna's not the best at that stuff, but that makes most people like her more), but more to her drive, her beliefs and how she goes about them. I've argued before, off this blog mainly, that my biggest bug bear with female characters in film and TV is either making them useless and a damsel or making them 'strong' by making them both flawless and physically violent, never to be touched and never to show any flaws. A strong, determined female lead who also can show vulnerability is something I appreciate, and something we definitely see in the lead character.
Tangled, by comparison, seems a lot shallower. The story is actually rife for an adaptation that has deep meaning, a sheltered girl heads out in to the world for the first time, but this film plays it mostly straight. It works as something of a celebration of innocence over cynicism (Rapunzel wins over just about everybody but her evil step mother through her pure naivety, sweetness and innocence while Flynn Rider's cynicism and sarcasm only ever makes things worse), and perhaps you could accomplish a meta-textual reading suggesting that is a defence of Disney's approach to film in general, but it's not really something as in your face as 'Let It Go' is for.. well, whatever you choose to believe it represents.
However, the characterisation is strong in this film too. Rapunzel, easily the archetypical damsel in distress in fairy tales, here is recast as excitable, naïve but capable. Her reason for never leaving her tower isn't because she can't escape it, but because at first she has loyalty to the person she believes is her mother, and then secondly because she doesn't know where to go. Flynn Rider is not her rescuer, but a man black mailed in to being her tour guide. And Flynn, despite being shown to be quick witted, funny and physically capable, quite literally never successfully solves a situation without Rapunzel's help. He never wins a fight, none of his plans ever pan out and he's constantly rescued by Rapunzel herself. If you read a summary of the film, it's easy to imagine Rapunzel in the typical Disney princess role, with Flynn as the heroic lead, but in truth, it's nearly the opposite. And even when Rapunzel is eventually 'kidnapped' at the end (returned to her mother, and even then that's because she hasn't quite worked out she's evil yet, something she does figure out on her own once she's back), so is Flynn, and he needs to be rescued before he can go and rescue her. And when he does... he fails and actually gets killed.
Good work, Prince Charming.
He makes a final heroic sacrifice, of course (cutting off Rapunzel's magic hair), but it's the type of sacrifice you might see the damsel make in a more traditional movie. The roles still feel inverted, despite Flynn's traditionally 'heroic' tendencies (he's the classic quick witted thief). Frozen, of course, also famously inverts Disney stereotypes, with the reveal of the true villain being entirely based on essentially mocking Disney's old 'love at first sight' stereotypes. And it's worth pointing out neither film accepts 'marriage just after having met' as an acceptable ending. Flynn and Rapunzel marry after 'years and years of asking' and Kristoff and Anna only just share their first kiss at the end of the movie.
But Frozen also has drawbacks that I feel Tangled doesn't. Firstly, its humour is worn much more on its sleeve, it's less witty and sarcastic and more earnest and slapstick, and in doing so, there's few laugh out loud moments. Those that do come come from Olaf the Snowman, the traditional comedy sidekick who, unfortunately, also manages to be a little irritating. He's used sparingly and a good example of a decent comedy sidekick, but you can't help but feel he detracts a little from the seriousness of some situations. He gets some genuinely very very funny bits, but his overall presence tends to make the film feel much more childish than it needs to be (and yes, I am aware I'm talking about Disney films).
Tangled also has funny characters, but they're approached in a slightly different way. Most of the comedy comes from Flynn Rider himself, who is of course also one of the leads, and is in the form of wit and sarcasm. It's amusing, often because it references what the audience is thinking, but also fits in to the universe without being quite so distracting. The sword fighting horse that follows him on the other hand is as absurd as it sounds, but since the characters all treat him seriously, it actually works without disruption somewhat better. Early scenes do tend to rely on slapstick a little as well, but they're so brutally harsh on the character (poor Flynn should be very, very dead in the first twenty minutes of this movie) they're not quite standard affairs.
Ultimately though, I end up thinking of characterisation. And while I've praised Anna's characterisation, the rest of the Frozen cast suffer. Kristoff, the love interest, is a hard working nice guy with a level of wit, but he's not exceptionally interesting. And Elsa, as I've said before, is problematic. Character design would have you believe she becomes a liberated, perhaps flirtatious, free spirit, but she's written to remain as stoic, formal and responsible as ever. She never lightens up, not really, and so remains the stiff, responsible older sister in contrast to what they seem to want with the visuals.
Put out of your head for a moment what you know of the film, and look at this image:
That look doesn't fit the character. And the rest just appear bland. In fact, if you compare the DVD covers of the films, you can see the problem.
Frozen gives us:
Tangled gives us:
And I think it shows why I prefer the characters in Tangled.
Ultimately, both are good Disney films, and I'm glad modern Disney is providing decent films for children these days. And I've put far more thought in to these than I ever imagined I would (I blame Kerry and cosplaying the characters), and I'm still not sold on the best. I think I lean towards Tangled for the characters, but they are both legitimately good movies. And if I ever have to think about them in this much detail again, I might just change my mind.
For now though, that's my conclusion. Tomorrow, video games or something to try and restore some of my non-existent credibility.
Sunday 16 November 2014
vs. Cosplay
With Kerry (that's my wife, if anybody finds this who doesn't know me) increasingly interested in costuming lately, I've spent a lot of my time thinking about cosplay. Cosplay, for the uninitiated, is the idea of dressing up in costume. Some people would say there's more to it than that, and perhaps there is, which is something I'll be discussing, but that's the essential idea.
The concept of 'cosplay' has grown massively in the last ten years (although not enough yet for Microsoft to recognise it as an official word, or so the red squiggly line on this blog tells me), particularly in geek culture. It's something often seen at the classic comic book conventions, but is spreading further and wider. Part of this is down to the fact conventions are spreading further too, particularly in England which never used to have many, and now there are several per year in most popular cities. Part of it is also probably down to the rise of geek culture in general. These days, geek culture dominates the media, in truth, with superhero movies reigning supreme at the box office and video game releases being major events.
But what makes cosplay 'cosplay', and not simply fancy dress? What's the difference between attending a fancy dress party and being a cosplayer? Apart from sobriety, of course (at least if you're an adult and take to fancy dress parties as I do). That's not such an easy question to answer. On the surface, and I'm sure many costumers would claim, it's down to quality. Traditionally, cosplayers put an awful lot of attention to detail (not to mention money) in to their costumes, moreso than perhaps a lay person would ever consider. I've seen things such as (and these are just a few) across various websites; people debated the exact type of stitch used to hold a jacket together, people becoming excited because they found a run of fabric that was used in the original costume, people trying to replicate an animated costume in period accurate materials and a person thrilled because the screen accurate gloves for his costume 'only' cost £60.00. There's a real sense of pride to costuming for some cosplayers, and getting it as accurately as possible. Particularly if they're replicating a live action costume, as they'll often seek to replicate the exact materials used (or be as close enough), or of course, if possible, buy the original garments (for example, sales of Crombie coats went up when Peter Capaldi was announced to be wearing one for Doctor Who as many people sought to acquire the same coat, even though this particular coat was somewhere in the range of £800). Other times, people attempt to create the costumes from animated shows or movies (anime is particularly popular), where you get a whole range of attempts, from replicated the animated look to making it realistic.
And then you get the people who go the other way, and try to create original costumes. Again, these are usually incredibly detailed, but often based around original concepts or twists. These can vary again, from ideas based on concept art, fan art, or simply original ideas. Steampunk variations on characters are popular, as are Star Wars ones, or perhaps obvious reversals (for example, 'Fire Elsa', the character from Frozen, but as if she had fire powers, seems to be a popular variation).
But does that mean you're not cosplaying if you buy a cheap costume for a character you love? Or if you assemble it from things you find in a charity shop (or thrift store, if you're American)? Or if you just make it out of things you already own for fun? Is that not cosplay? I'd say it obviously is. It seems to be a hobby that can be quite judgemental. There are people out there who make their own costumes from scratch, so look down on those who buy them. There are those that buy the extremely high end ones. There are those that buy mid-range ones that are considered 'cheap'. And there's the aforementioned fancy dress. And everybody has opinions of other people. Particularly in a hobby based around dressing as a character; how do you react when you see somebody else dressed as that character? If they're better than yours, or worse? What do you think and what do you say? It's not a surprise some people get arrogant or snobby about it.
But that all makes it sound like a negative hobby, and from what I've been seeing, it's really not. People come together not only with a love of the characters, but a love of getting to be somebody else. They seem to get quite a lot of abuse throughout both the internet and real life, like cosplaying is the ultimate 'nerd' label, but it's a surprisingly social hobby. People make friends with other costumers, discuss where they got theirs from and how they made them, form groups that work together for similar characters, and generally have a passion for what they do that makes them want to do it often, for parties or for advertising events, and usually that makes them friendly and willing to have fun, as well as make others smile. With Kerry's particular interest, I see this a lot in pages she looks at with Disney cosplayers, who love dressing up and entertaining children. It's a social, friendly hobby. Certainly moreso than sitting in a darkened room playing games.
It's certainly not cheap, however. The 'cheap' cosplay sites (the one I frequented to try and do a costume when I agreed to join in with Kerry was www.cosplaysky.com) still have their costumes usually ranging around the £100 mark (roughly, some much more, some a little less), but this is really considered cheap in this hobby it seems. High end sites seem to sell single garments for closer to £600 (for example, a single coat for part of a costume), and that's without mentioning the popularity of armoured characters, like the Master Chief from Halo or stormtroopers from Star Wars. A lot of people make their own, and the ingenuity they show in doing that can be quite inspiring. I met a Jack Sparrow cosplayer a few weeks ago who showed me his pirate hat was constructed around an old No Fear baseball cap. I had no idea. When I saw him, my first reaction was to assume he had spent an awful lot of money on a high end replica. But instead he'd made the entire costume himself.
And as soon as a child walked near, he snapped back perfectly in to character, and that was that. Clearly people love a chance to be somebody else, it's why we all play video games, and this is another extension of it, but here it's great because it seems to bring joy to other people too.
It's a strange hobby to get your head around, and I'm not sure I understand it entirely myself yet, but I know it does Kerry a world of good getting to pretend to be somebody else, and I'd be lying if I didn't say my brief forays in to it hadn't be an awful lot of fun too.
The concept of 'cosplay' has grown massively in the last ten years (although not enough yet for Microsoft to recognise it as an official word, or so the red squiggly line on this blog tells me), particularly in geek culture. It's something often seen at the classic comic book conventions, but is spreading further and wider. Part of this is down to the fact conventions are spreading further too, particularly in England which never used to have many, and now there are several per year in most popular cities. Part of it is also probably down to the rise of geek culture in general. These days, geek culture dominates the media, in truth, with superhero movies reigning supreme at the box office and video game releases being major events.
But what makes cosplay 'cosplay', and not simply fancy dress? What's the difference between attending a fancy dress party and being a cosplayer? Apart from sobriety, of course (at least if you're an adult and take to fancy dress parties as I do). That's not such an easy question to answer. On the surface, and I'm sure many costumers would claim, it's down to quality. Traditionally, cosplayers put an awful lot of attention to detail (not to mention money) in to their costumes, moreso than perhaps a lay person would ever consider. I've seen things such as (and these are just a few) across various websites; people debated the exact type of stitch used to hold a jacket together, people becoming excited because they found a run of fabric that was used in the original costume, people trying to replicate an animated costume in period accurate materials and a person thrilled because the screen accurate gloves for his costume 'only' cost £60.00. There's a real sense of pride to costuming for some cosplayers, and getting it as accurately as possible. Particularly if they're replicating a live action costume, as they'll often seek to replicate the exact materials used (or be as close enough), or of course, if possible, buy the original garments (for example, sales of Crombie coats went up when Peter Capaldi was announced to be wearing one for Doctor Who as many people sought to acquire the same coat, even though this particular coat was somewhere in the range of £800). Other times, people attempt to create the costumes from animated shows or movies (anime is particularly popular), where you get a whole range of attempts, from replicated the animated look to making it realistic.
And then you get the people who go the other way, and try to create original costumes. Again, these are usually incredibly detailed, but often based around original concepts or twists. These can vary again, from ideas based on concept art, fan art, or simply original ideas. Steampunk variations on characters are popular, as are Star Wars ones, or perhaps obvious reversals (for example, 'Fire Elsa', the character from Frozen, but as if she had fire powers, seems to be a popular variation).
But does that mean you're not cosplaying if you buy a cheap costume for a character you love? Or if you assemble it from things you find in a charity shop (or thrift store, if you're American)? Or if you just make it out of things you already own for fun? Is that not cosplay? I'd say it obviously is. It seems to be a hobby that can be quite judgemental. There are people out there who make their own costumes from scratch, so look down on those who buy them. There are those that buy the extremely high end ones. There are those that buy mid-range ones that are considered 'cheap'. And there's the aforementioned fancy dress. And everybody has opinions of other people. Particularly in a hobby based around dressing as a character; how do you react when you see somebody else dressed as that character? If they're better than yours, or worse? What do you think and what do you say? It's not a surprise some people get arrogant or snobby about it.
But that all makes it sound like a negative hobby, and from what I've been seeing, it's really not. People come together not only with a love of the characters, but a love of getting to be somebody else. They seem to get quite a lot of abuse throughout both the internet and real life, like cosplaying is the ultimate 'nerd' label, but it's a surprisingly social hobby. People make friends with other costumers, discuss where they got theirs from and how they made them, form groups that work together for similar characters, and generally have a passion for what they do that makes them want to do it often, for parties or for advertising events, and usually that makes them friendly and willing to have fun, as well as make others smile. With Kerry's particular interest, I see this a lot in pages she looks at with Disney cosplayers, who love dressing up and entertaining children. It's a social, friendly hobby. Certainly moreso than sitting in a darkened room playing games.
It's certainly not cheap, however. The 'cheap' cosplay sites (the one I frequented to try and do a costume when I agreed to join in with Kerry was www.cosplaysky.com) still have their costumes usually ranging around the £100 mark (roughly, some much more, some a little less), but this is really considered cheap in this hobby it seems. High end sites seem to sell single garments for closer to £600 (for example, a single coat for part of a costume), and that's without mentioning the popularity of armoured characters, like the Master Chief from Halo or stormtroopers from Star Wars. A lot of people make their own, and the ingenuity they show in doing that can be quite inspiring. I met a Jack Sparrow cosplayer a few weeks ago who showed me his pirate hat was constructed around an old No Fear baseball cap. I had no idea. When I saw him, my first reaction was to assume he had spent an awful lot of money on a high end replica. But instead he'd made the entire costume himself.
And as soon as a child walked near, he snapped back perfectly in to character, and that was that. Clearly people love a chance to be somebody else, it's why we all play video games, and this is another extension of it, but here it's great because it seems to bring joy to other people too.
It's a strange hobby to get your head around, and I'm not sure I understand it entirely myself yet, but I know it does Kerry a world of good getting to pretend to be somebody else, and I'd be lying if I didn't say my brief forays in to it hadn't be an awful lot of fun too.
Friday 14 November 2014
vs. Agent X
In a break from the norm (the norm being that one post I did the other day), I want to discuss something I've not discussed before. Comic books!
I've always had something of a passing interest in the world of comics without really reading many. I've always found it an expensive endeavour, given that comics are a very brief medium, and thanks to the cost of printing, usually expensive too. However, recently I've been growing to appreciate them more as a visual medium, finding that when one is good, it's somewhat like watching a good film. Sure, it's over faster than a regular book, but it can still be enjoyable.
So I'm going to talk about a reasonably obscure Marvel comic book series I really enjoyed, and one of the older comics I read. It's probably unlikely people who surf the net regularly haven't heard of the character of Deadpool these days, he's probably one of Marvel's most popular characters who hasn't yet been put to film (although that's set to change). In brief, he's Marvel's go-to comedy character, a character that's supposed to be insane to the point he believes he's in a comic book, but with the regenerative powers of Wolverine meaning he's actually quite formidable. With a wacky personality and an actual badass set of abilities, these days he's very popular (although, in my opinion, the humour is so far over done he's far more annoying than likeable in his modern iterations). However, despite his current popularity, he wasn't always like that. Back when he first got his own standalone series, while he had something of a cult following (and in my opinion, the series was the best it's ever been), it wasn't popular enough with sales, and got cancelled when Marvel made the decision that their best selling X-Men related comic books had the letter 'X' in. (Deadpool was considered an X-Men related character as his origin was tied to the same project that created Wolverine, and so fell under the 'X' banner).
Deadpool was apparently killed off in the finale of his own series in a massive explosion, along with a powerful villain with the ability to manipulate minds, and Agent X, the series began, in which a heavily scarred (although not in the same manner as Deadpool) mysterious man showed up, with Deadpool's powers, no memory of who he was and a similar 'wacky' personality. What then followed was a short lived series about a character that was, on paper at least, essentially 'Deadpool with a different name', but as a series turned out to be something a little different.
Without spoiling the end, Agent X was in fact not Deadpool. A key fact that made him actually a much more likeable character. He was never as malicious or cruel as Deadpool was, and while the series sometimes appealed to the same juvenile humour, he was somehow both more mature and yet with a child-like innocence, and certainly more of a traditional 'good guy' (if not hero) than Deadpool ever was.
The result was a series with a sense of humour that remained fun, but had a more likeable lead character. Part of this was down to the writing (initially at least, after the first seven issues, the writers changed, but I'm not counting that). Written by Gail Simone, a comic book writer who has something of a reputation for both being very good and proposing some highly accurate theories about feminism in comic books, she breathed a life in to making these characters and these settings both likeable and funny. (Gail is responsible for coining the phrase 'women in refrigerators', a bizarre phrase outside of the comic book circle, but inside used to refer to the unfortunate habit of killing off female supporting cast members just to give the male characters motivation, named after one of Green Lantern's girlfriends being killed and stuffed in a fridge ; something she was vocally opposed to). She created a good supporting cast (particularly in early stories), and gave the series a real team dynamic of interesting characters who managed to be funny without particularly appealing to the broad 'jump up and down and make them laugh' approach Deadpool often fell in to.
Agent X, the lead character, carried the weight of the comedy, but mainly with a child like attitude mixed with a brutal mercenary toughness and a bizarre set of high class tastes even he didn't understand (all character traits that made sense when you knew who, or what, he was). He was never quite as wacky as Deadpool, and instead seemed to just have a brilliant sense of humour, and often end up in ridiculous situations because of it. He was supported by three main allies. There was Sandi, a very well written female civilian character, who never minded getting involved, was tough and capable in her own right, but a very believable person. She was never a fighter and yet you always believed she'd be involved with these people. There was Outlaw, a very short tempered, super strong cowgirl, who had the humorous role of being cast as the voice of reason and experience a lot of the time despite being utterly inappropriate for it in many ways, making her a great supporting character. (It's easy in comedy to cast a female as the 'straight man' of the group, but what this series seemed to do was have her as a character who sort of thought she should fit in to that role, but in reality, she was just as bad as the others so awful at it). Often emphasised by her losing her temper, or asides from Agent X, often about her behaviour (such as her Western obsession or eating habits). And finally you had the only non-original, non-Deadpool character in the team, Taskmaster. Taskmaster was actually a major Avengers villain for a while, with the power to copy what anybody else did, and often opposed to the heroes. Here, cast as another mercenary, he's basically the jerk, but equally humorous, just in a bitter and sarcastic way.
Taskmaster also gets one of my favourite comedy moments in a comic book ever, when he meets the daughters of two of the campest villains in Marvel's history, his response is:
(Well, I found it funny).
What followed then was a series that was funny, had a true feeling of a band of misfits, perhaps overlooked by the rest of the Marvel universe, and yet managed to avoid falling in to the pitfalls that would later ensnare Deadpool (and yet make him more popular than ever). Unfortunately, however, the character was still essentially a replacement for a character people loved, and mysteriously, putting 'X' in the title didn't magically make it sell better. And so, the series was cancelled after only thirteen issues. They did at least invite Gail Simone back to finish it off, and the ending three issues are pretty great (and see Deadpool return, explain who Agent X is and have the two team up, which actually helps highlight they're nowhere near as similar as people think).
Deadpool went on to return to an ongoing series called Cable and Deadpool, shared with another semi-popular character named Cable, the feeling being that neither character was popular enough for their own series but together they could manage it. (These days Deadpool is so popular that series has been re-released as 'Deadpool and Cable', which probably says it all). Agent X cameo'd a few times, was turned obese (I'm not joking) and forgotten. Outlaw and Sandi stuck around for a little while longer, mainly to get kidnapped (despite one having super strength) and then disappeared when Cable and Deadpool ended.
Agent X never appeared again. And of course, it's likely he never will. Agent X will never get a movie or another series, not while Deadpool is around as a much more popular character, but for a while it was a fantastic, fun little series, and it's a shame that some great writing and character moments didn't get the audience they deserved, and it's still not really spoken of today, despite Deadpool's increased popularity.
I've always had something of a passing interest in the world of comics without really reading many. I've always found it an expensive endeavour, given that comics are a very brief medium, and thanks to the cost of printing, usually expensive too. However, recently I've been growing to appreciate them more as a visual medium, finding that when one is good, it's somewhat like watching a good film. Sure, it's over faster than a regular book, but it can still be enjoyable.
So I'm going to talk about a reasonably obscure Marvel comic book series I really enjoyed, and one of the older comics I read. It's probably unlikely people who surf the net regularly haven't heard of the character of Deadpool these days, he's probably one of Marvel's most popular characters who hasn't yet been put to film (although that's set to change). In brief, he's Marvel's go-to comedy character, a character that's supposed to be insane to the point he believes he's in a comic book, but with the regenerative powers of Wolverine meaning he's actually quite formidable. With a wacky personality and an actual badass set of abilities, these days he's very popular (although, in my opinion, the humour is so far over done he's far more annoying than likeable in his modern iterations). However, despite his current popularity, he wasn't always like that. Back when he first got his own standalone series, while he had something of a cult following (and in my opinion, the series was the best it's ever been), it wasn't popular enough with sales, and got cancelled when Marvel made the decision that their best selling X-Men related comic books had the letter 'X' in. (Deadpool was considered an X-Men related character as his origin was tied to the same project that created Wolverine, and so fell under the 'X' banner).
Deadpool was apparently killed off in the finale of his own series in a massive explosion, along with a powerful villain with the ability to manipulate minds, and Agent X, the series began, in which a heavily scarred (although not in the same manner as Deadpool) mysterious man showed up, with Deadpool's powers, no memory of who he was and a similar 'wacky' personality. What then followed was a short lived series about a character that was, on paper at least, essentially 'Deadpool with a different name', but as a series turned out to be something a little different.
Without spoiling the end, Agent X was in fact not Deadpool. A key fact that made him actually a much more likeable character. He was never as malicious or cruel as Deadpool was, and while the series sometimes appealed to the same juvenile humour, he was somehow both more mature and yet with a child-like innocence, and certainly more of a traditional 'good guy' (if not hero) than Deadpool ever was.
The result was a series with a sense of humour that remained fun, but had a more likeable lead character. Part of this was down to the writing (initially at least, after the first seven issues, the writers changed, but I'm not counting that). Written by Gail Simone, a comic book writer who has something of a reputation for both being very good and proposing some highly accurate theories about feminism in comic books, she breathed a life in to making these characters and these settings both likeable and funny. (Gail is responsible for coining the phrase 'women in refrigerators', a bizarre phrase outside of the comic book circle, but inside used to refer to the unfortunate habit of killing off female supporting cast members just to give the male characters motivation, named after one of Green Lantern's girlfriends being killed and stuffed in a fridge ; something she was vocally opposed to). She created a good supporting cast (particularly in early stories), and gave the series a real team dynamic of interesting characters who managed to be funny without particularly appealing to the broad 'jump up and down and make them laugh' approach Deadpool often fell in to.
Agent X, the lead character, carried the weight of the comedy, but mainly with a child like attitude mixed with a brutal mercenary toughness and a bizarre set of high class tastes even he didn't understand (all character traits that made sense when you knew who, or what, he was). He was never quite as wacky as Deadpool, and instead seemed to just have a brilliant sense of humour, and often end up in ridiculous situations because of it. He was supported by three main allies. There was Sandi, a very well written female civilian character, who never minded getting involved, was tough and capable in her own right, but a very believable person. She was never a fighter and yet you always believed she'd be involved with these people. There was Outlaw, a very short tempered, super strong cowgirl, who had the humorous role of being cast as the voice of reason and experience a lot of the time despite being utterly inappropriate for it in many ways, making her a great supporting character. (It's easy in comedy to cast a female as the 'straight man' of the group, but what this series seemed to do was have her as a character who sort of thought she should fit in to that role, but in reality, she was just as bad as the others so awful at it). Often emphasised by her losing her temper, or asides from Agent X, often about her behaviour (such as her Western obsession or eating habits). And finally you had the only non-original, non-Deadpool character in the team, Taskmaster. Taskmaster was actually a major Avengers villain for a while, with the power to copy what anybody else did, and often opposed to the heroes. Here, cast as another mercenary, he's basically the jerk, but equally humorous, just in a bitter and sarcastic way.
Taskmaster also gets one of my favourite comedy moments in a comic book ever, when he meets the daughters of two of the campest villains in Marvel's history, his response is:
(Well, I found it funny).
What followed then was a series that was funny, had a true feeling of a band of misfits, perhaps overlooked by the rest of the Marvel universe, and yet managed to avoid falling in to the pitfalls that would later ensnare Deadpool (and yet make him more popular than ever). Unfortunately, however, the character was still essentially a replacement for a character people loved, and mysteriously, putting 'X' in the title didn't magically make it sell better. And so, the series was cancelled after only thirteen issues. They did at least invite Gail Simone back to finish it off, and the ending three issues are pretty great (and see Deadpool return, explain who Agent X is and have the two team up, which actually helps highlight they're nowhere near as similar as people think).
Deadpool went on to return to an ongoing series called Cable and Deadpool, shared with another semi-popular character named Cable, the feeling being that neither character was popular enough for their own series but together they could manage it. (These days Deadpool is so popular that series has been re-released as 'Deadpool and Cable', which probably says it all). Agent X cameo'd a few times, was turned obese (I'm not joking) and forgotten. Outlaw and Sandi stuck around for a little while longer, mainly to get kidnapped (despite one having super strength) and then disappeared when Cable and Deadpool ended.
Agent X never appeared again. And of course, it's likely he never will. Agent X will never get a movie or another series, not while Deadpool is around as a much more popular character, but for a while it was a fantastic, fun little series, and it's a shame that some great writing and character moments didn't get the audience they deserved, and it's still not really spoken of today, despite Deadpool's increased popularity.
Thursday 13 November 2014
vs. The Flash
It's been a while, but I've decided it's time to revive this blog and to continue my experience in reviewing things. If any long time readers (all four of them) remain, they'll notice that I've deleted the older, non-review posts, mainly because I want to focus on reviews.
So to begin with, I'm going to discuss a new TV show that I've been watching. Released to a lot of buzz this year, The Flash is a superhero TV show from the DC stable. DC have really been struggling in films lately to match what Marvel have done with their shared universe and their continued success rate, but somewhere where DC has been finding quiet success is in the world of TV shows. Arrow, a show that started off as perhaps a very traditional, very American adventure show has grown in to one of the strongest on screen comic book adaptations around, and The Flash is spinning off from that show, set in the same universe, but trying something a little different.
Arrow is a very easy show to describe. Particularly when you sit down and watch the early episodes, the scene leading to its origin is easy to see. Somewhere, a group of television executives met, thrilled by the recent success of the Dark Knight movies, and desperate to find a way to cash in on that success. Suddenly, one of them pipes up that they still have the television rights to the Green Arrow, left over from his appearances in Smallville, who's a billionaire who lives in a mansion and dresses up to fight crime using his fortune while operating out of an underground lair. And so, the Dark Knight: The TV Series is born, except instead of Batman, it stars 'The Arrow', a masked (eventually) crime fighter.
And at first it started out wearing its Dark Knight influences so on its sleeve that the show really suffered. It essentially played out like the recent Nolan Batman movies, but with even more scenes reminding us how rich the hero was, and how totally difficult being a billionaire was. Suffice to say, sympathies weren't really with him. But then, about half way through the first series, supervillains began to turn up, plots to destroy the city began happening, and things began to evolve as the show grew in to a real superhero show. It was a slow build, with Arrow himself not even donning a mask until a good few episodes in to series two (up until then, he best method to hide his identity was 'look at the floor and wear a hood if they know me'), but the show soon transcended its 'trying to be Batman' routes and grew to be a really good superhero adaptation in its own right. However, as you might expect for a show starring a powerless man who dresses up to fight crime, it remained relatively grounded. There were superpowered villains in series two, but their appearance was always justified and nothing too outlandish. So, for the more surreal, out there comic book stuff, we got The Flash.
And it's a very mixed bag. For those who aren't familiar with him, The Flash is the 'Fastest Man Alive'. Of course, this particular superpower exists across pretty much all superhero franchises, from Quiksilver in the X-Men and Avengers (and making a show stopping appearance in the recent Days of Future Past) to Dash in The Incredibles. So it's nothing original, but a chance for the creators of Arrow to really explore the more outlandish aspects of the DC universe.
The show starts very earnestly, with Barry Allen (the titular hero once he gets his powers) getting struck by lightning when a Big Science Experiment goes wrong (shocking, I know). He wakes up after nine months in a coma to discover he can move super fast. The only problem is that the Big Science Experiment caused a massive storm that's given lots of other people thematic-to-their-personality superpowers too, and Barry is the only one who can stop them! Because apparently nobody else who got caught in this storm has any kind of moral centre at all. They're all completely evil.
And so, Barry becomes The Flash, aided by a group of fairly generic scientist characters (although the wheelchair bound leader gets some fairly sinister twists and turns). The problem is that the show feels incredibly rushed to get to the superheroing. While Arrow very slowly built up its world, its allies, and how it worked, here Barry awakes from a coma surrounded by a group of people, scientists who are a team who will help him, and yes, they even have a suit they prepared earlier. It all feels very identikit. "Ah, good, Barry, you're awake, I'm your grumpy mentor, this is your love interest, and over there is the annoying geeky side kick, now get to work." All that natural development in Arrow is gone (and it really was natural, one of Arrow's key characters was only meant to appear in one episode, but worked so well they kept bringing her back until now she's one of the main characters in the show) and instead we're dumped with a cast we know nothing about that are instantly formed in to a team.
To make matters worse, the chance to go 'outlandish' is instead used to go 'cheesy'. And often without the special effects to back it up. In the first three episodes, where the UK is at the time of writing, we've had villains who can control the weather, multiply themselves, and turn in to gas. It's all done without subtly, the villains don't have any particular character, and I find myself painfully reminded of superhero 'fights' from that era where superhero films just couldn't get it right. These episodes play out like the battles against the generic henchmen in Ghost Rider. It's not a good thing.
'Cheesy' tends to be the optimum word. Barry narrates things in a cheerful, optimistic tone that feels like a Sam Raimi Spider-man movie without any of the self awareness, and it's difficult to shake the feeling that an episode will end with Barry saving the day with the power of friendship at the rate things are going.
But it isn't all bad. Outside of his pre-assembled science team, Barry has some interesting relationships. His adoptive father is a police captain, and Barry himself is a forensic scientist. This helps him be involved in the weekly plots, and it's nice that he has a serious job. And his wheelchair bound mentor is revealed very early on to have some very sinister secrets that are particularly interesting, and make for compelling viewing.
Yet at the moment, the show needs to develop some serious storylines and move past 'generic villain of the week'. It needs a plot arc and it needs to allow some characters to develop. Cheesy is okay, fun is good, we don't all want dark and gritty, but characters still need to be three dimensional and plots earned, not just created instantly. While Arrow stumbled out of the gate due to being too inspired by the Dark Knight, and perhaps being too generic and focusing on the wrong things, The Flash feels like it's moving too fast and not taking its time to earn what it has. And in doing so, we're not developing any attachment, or worse, any interest, in where things are going.
In other words, the fastest man alive needs to slow down a bit.
So to begin with, I'm going to discuss a new TV show that I've been watching. Released to a lot of buzz this year, The Flash is a superhero TV show from the DC stable. DC have really been struggling in films lately to match what Marvel have done with their shared universe and their continued success rate, but somewhere where DC has been finding quiet success is in the world of TV shows. Arrow, a show that started off as perhaps a very traditional, very American adventure show has grown in to one of the strongest on screen comic book adaptations around, and The Flash is spinning off from that show, set in the same universe, but trying something a little different.
Arrow is a very easy show to describe. Particularly when you sit down and watch the early episodes, the scene leading to its origin is easy to see. Somewhere, a group of television executives met, thrilled by the recent success of the Dark Knight movies, and desperate to find a way to cash in on that success. Suddenly, one of them pipes up that they still have the television rights to the Green Arrow, left over from his appearances in Smallville, who's a billionaire who lives in a mansion and dresses up to fight crime using his fortune while operating out of an underground lair. And so, the Dark Knight: The TV Series is born, except instead of Batman, it stars 'The Arrow', a masked (eventually) crime fighter.
And at first it started out wearing its Dark Knight influences so on its sleeve that the show really suffered. It essentially played out like the recent Nolan Batman movies, but with even more scenes reminding us how rich the hero was, and how totally difficult being a billionaire was. Suffice to say, sympathies weren't really with him. But then, about half way through the first series, supervillains began to turn up, plots to destroy the city began happening, and things began to evolve as the show grew in to a real superhero show. It was a slow build, with Arrow himself not even donning a mask until a good few episodes in to series two (up until then, he best method to hide his identity was 'look at the floor and wear a hood if they know me'), but the show soon transcended its 'trying to be Batman' routes and grew to be a really good superhero adaptation in its own right. However, as you might expect for a show starring a powerless man who dresses up to fight crime, it remained relatively grounded. There were superpowered villains in series two, but their appearance was always justified and nothing too outlandish. So, for the more surreal, out there comic book stuff, we got The Flash.
And it's a very mixed bag. For those who aren't familiar with him, The Flash is the 'Fastest Man Alive'. Of course, this particular superpower exists across pretty much all superhero franchises, from Quiksilver in the X-Men and Avengers (and making a show stopping appearance in the recent Days of Future Past) to Dash in The Incredibles. So it's nothing original, but a chance for the creators of Arrow to really explore the more outlandish aspects of the DC universe.
The show starts very earnestly, with Barry Allen (the titular hero once he gets his powers) getting struck by lightning when a Big Science Experiment goes wrong (shocking, I know). He wakes up after nine months in a coma to discover he can move super fast. The only problem is that the Big Science Experiment caused a massive storm that's given lots of other people thematic-to-their-personality superpowers too, and Barry is the only one who can stop them! Because apparently nobody else who got caught in this storm has any kind of moral centre at all. They're all completely evil.
And so, Barry becomes The Flash, aided by a group of fairly generic scientist characters (although the wheelchair bound leader gets some fairly sinister twists and turns). The problem is that the show feels incredibly rushed to get to the superheroing. While Arrow very slowly built up its world, its allies, and how it worked, here Barry awakes from a coma surrounded by a group of people, scientists who are a team who will help him, and yes, they even have a suit they prepared earlier. It all feels very identikit. "Ah, good, Barry, you're awake, I'm your grumpy mentor, this is your love interest, and over there is the annoying geeky side kick, now get to work." All that natural development in Arrow is gone (and it really was natural, one of Arrow's key characters was only meant to appear in one episode, but worked so well they kept bringing her back until now she's one of the main characters in the show) and instead we're dumped with a cast we know nothing about that are instantly formed in to a team.
To make matters worse, the chance to go 'outlandish' is instead used to go 'cheesy'. And often without the special effects to back it up. In the first three episodes, where the UK is at the time of writing, we've had villains who can control the weather, multiply themselves, and turn in to gas. It's all done without subtly, the villains don't have any particular character, and I find myself painfully reminded of superhero 'fights' from that era where superhero films just couldn't get it right. These episodes play out like the battles against the generic henchmen in Ghost Rider. It's not a good thing.
'Cheesy' tends to be the optimum word. Barry narrates things in a cheerful, optimistic tone that feels like a Sam Raimi Spider-man movie without any of the self awareness, and it's difficult to shake the feeling that an episode will end with Barry saving the day with the power of friendship at the rate things are going.
But it isn't all bad. Outside of his pre-assembled science team, Barry has some interesting relationships. His adoptive father is a police captain, and Barry himself is a forensic scientist. This helps him be involved in the weekly plots, and it's nice that he has a serious job. And his wheelchair bound mentor is revealed very early on to have some very sinister secrets that are particularly interesting, and make for compelling viewing.
Yet at the moment, the show needs to develop some serious storylines and move past 'generic villain of the week'. It needs a plot arc and it needs to allow some characters to develop. Cheesy is okay, fun is good, we don't all want dark and gritty, but characters still need to be three dimensional and plots earned, not just created instantly. While Arrow stumbled out of the gate due to being too inspired by the Dark Knight, and perhaps being too generic and focusing on the wrong things, The Flash feels like it's moving too fast and not taking its time to earn what it has. And in doing so, we're not developing any attachment, or worse, any interest, in where things are going.
In other words, the fastest man alive needs to slow down a bit.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)