Like a lot of people, I've been obsessively following the new Bad Robot film, Cloverfield for the past 6 months.
I first saw the teaser in front of Transformers, went through the Ethan Haas puzzles, only to find out they had nothing to do with Cloverfield. As the movie has approached, there's been countless discussions at work about what rumors were true, what new clues had been discovered, and a lot of scepticism of whether this movie would live up to the hype.
This afternoon, I found out the answer.
For me, the answer was a resounding yes!
Is this a movie to "redefine" the genre' of giant monster movies? Not at all.
Because this isn't a "giant monster movie."
Yes, there is a large monster, yes it's trashing Manhattan. But that's merely the vehicle to set up the story.
First and foremost, this is a story about people and their reactions to disaster.
There are going to be a lot of comparisions to September 11, 2001 with this movie. I can't speak to the accuracy of the rolling wave of dust from collapsed buildings or the sheer confusion where communication is limited and what many people had was simply what they could see, none of it good. I can't speak to any of this because I was on the other side of the country on that day.
What I can speak to, is the reaction of Rob, the main character of the movie. And, in that respect, they got it right.
From my perspective, in everyone's life there is probably at least one person who has at one point or another, been the center of what is good and "right," with your life. You may not see them for a decade, or even talk to them during that stretch of time but, in the back of your mind they are always there, always important and when you do see them it's as if time has not passed and the level of comfort you've felt with them is rekindled.
I've been lucky that I have a few friends like that, one of whom lives in Manhattan and works for a company which had offices in the World Trade Center Towers. I didn't know where her office was located at the time, but after the towers fell that day, I sent a frantic email to her just needing to know she was ok. When I got the response she was fine, that her office was in a different part of New York City, the relief I felt can't be described.
But what if it had been different?
If this was one of those people in your life you would move heaven and earth to get to them to help.
And that's what this movie is really about.
This is the movie about people being people in the face of hell on earth trying to support each other while everything falls apart.
A lot has been made about the hand held camera work in this movie and I'm going to touch on it for two points.
The first is about the camerwork itself. I think it says alot about the director, Matt Reeves and the way he cut the movie. Yes, I understand they often did 50 or 60 takes to get a living feel for the camera work, but in terms of suspension of disbelief, I really felt like I was following a real person filming this, not a director who was only showing you what you needed to see to build suspense. The reactions felt right as the character of "Hud" is panning around wildly at times, especially in the beginning of the movie where the characters don't have a lot of focused direction and Hud is reacting to any and everything. Later, as we start moving toward getting to Beth, the person Rob needs to move heaven and earth to help, the camera is more focused and directed, until the next pitfall hits the group.
From a technical standpoint, I also thought the way Reeves handled the hand help camera viewpoint was exceptionally well done. He starts the movie with inexpert and deliberate over the top jerking of the camera before quickly moving to a more "sedate" version of the hand help camera view.
So, why did he do it?
Much the way you close your eyes for 10-20 seconds to adjust to the darkness, by going over the top initially and disorienting the movie goer, Reeves gives the viewers the equivelent of the 20 seconds of darkness. So, you start to adjust. And when all hell breaks loose and you are back to the original level of shakiness in the camera you've adjusted enough to not only not get sick, but to be able to follow along as if it's you behind the camera. And, as the movie builds to new levels, you are once again somewhat used to the shaking of the camera. And, as the movie reaches its climax you are fully immersed and can handle what's going on before you.
Now, is this to say that things are always shaky and in constant motion? Actually not. Though a good portion of the movie is spent in this mode, there are respites, well timed to allow you to catch your breath and take in what needs to be seen. Still, this is not a movie I would want to be idly flipping channels on a weekday evening and come across in the middle.
My second comment about the hand held camerawork comes in answer to a question that one of the group I saw the movie with had as we walked out of the movie. She mused that she probably would have put down the camera after an hour or so and wondered why the character of "Hud" didn't. The answer I now have for her, having thought about it for a few hours is as follows:
Drew Goddard did a fantastic job of writing this movie. Matt Reeves did a fantastic job of directing this movie. In the 50 to 60 takes that they did for most shots, the actors were probably directed to a certain extent to bring out their characters and find out what would fit best with them.
The character of Hud is the best friend of Rob. We are quickly shown he's insecure and it's implied he relies on Rob for a lot of his direction. As the movie progresses, it's Hud behind the camera who makes the wise cracks which are plainly a defense mechanism. But the wise cracks are really a secondary defense mechanism. His primary weapon against the horror around him is this camera. As long as he is filming and looking through the viewfinder, it's just a film. It's not actually happening to him or his friends because it's all on video. If he ever puts the camera down (which does happen several times) he actually has to confront what is going on around him and that is something he does not want to do.
So, on all those levels the movie succeeded brilliantly. You cared about these characters and as the group was whittled down, you felt their pain. The reactions of the camera and the actors were fantastic. I think Matt Reeves was dead on when he cast professional actors who weren't stars. You looked at them as if they were people not "that Hollywood star who's being badgered by paparazzi but I liked their last film so I'm going to see this one." It was because there weren't any preconceived notions that "oh that's Tom Hanks," but rather someone whos face and imdb.com resume didn't come to mind as soon as you saw them that allowed you to suspend disbelief and really experience this as it was meant to: an intimate perspective of a rather large catastrophe.
There's one moment that really brought it all into perspective for me. At one point during the film the characters have to choose to move from the subway tubes to the surface again (it's in a commercial so not much of a spoiler) however, when they go through the door to the "unknown," they find themselves in a familiar space. In this case, the comment was "Oh, it's 59th street." I don't know the New York subways at all. But, at one pointin time when I lived in the Bay Area, I could tell you what station along my BART line and throughout San Francisco we were at by just at a glance. That simple comment solidified the movie for me. These were people who have just discovered that they have emerged into a comfort zone by opening the mystery door. And that level of comfort in the "oh" spoke worlds about who these people are.
Now, having just blathered on about how this isn't a giant monster movie, I do need to discuss the "Big Bad."
The most cynical of the group I saw this with (you know the type; always griping, nothing is ever positive, on high blood pressure medication by 35,) said the creature was a complete Cthulhu rip off and not original at all. And he's right, but not in the way he meant.
I will be the first to admit, I like Lovecraft's writing, not for his meter or even the prose, but rather the obtuse descriptions (okay, so that's part of his prose) he comes up with. In that respect the giant monster in Cloverfield would be aptly described by Lovecraft because it's a downright horror show in and of itself. It's something out of several people's nightmares and you don't look at it an say "ooh, giant mutant iguana exposed to radiation over several generations and ever expanding."
This creature isn't easily described both because often what you see of it is constantly in motion and it's not standing still long enough for you to stop and say "hrm, they took the head of x, the legs of y, added in z with a little of w thrown in for good measure." When it does slow down enough, or the camera is at an angle to get a better view you take it in and your mind doesn't want to accept what you are seeing.
Another thing done execptionaly well was the lack of background music or score. There was nothing to distract you from the immersion experience. And immersion in sound it had. If there's any justice, this movie will win a technical oscar for sound because, despite the lack of the latest music video tie in song or "haunting score to enhance the mood," everything around you is a multi-layered auditory symphony in the movie. Even when the the characters are focused on something else, there's the background noise of a war being fought somewhere nearby: weapons are being discharged, the monster is roaring and things are getting blown up or flattened by the newest immigrant to come through Ellis Island. There are several moments in the film where the characters are inside buildings where all the alarms are going off. You know the type, the piercing beeps going off in concert with the flashing strobes. One type of director would have them going off, then slowly fade them down. Reeves didn't. They are as loud and obnoxious as they are in real life and they complete the scene.
So, having slobbered like a dog over a fresh bone, is the movie perfect? No.
Every time the camera is turned off and back on, we get a scene (this found media is a tape over from a defining moment in Rob and Beth's friendship,) from the previous recording and there were at least two scenes where I can think of where it broke up the flow of the movie.
Some of the setup of the movie I thought was a little forced. They introduced the main characters in a reasonable fashion, but there were a few moments that felt a little less than real.
However, once the movie gets moving it's mostly a non stop ride. When there finally is a break in the action, I found myself looking at the screen just listening to the rapid beating of my heart, taking in everything and wondering what the hell the movie had done to me.
So, does the movie meet the "was I entertained" criterion?
Let's put it this way. I had a gift certificate to the theater that's been sitting in my wallet for ten months. I used it on this movie because I didn't think it could live up to the hype. Now I wish I'd paid for the movie so I could use it on something else that might not be a good bet.
Friday, January 18, 2008
Sunday, January 13, 2008
Game rant - In game cut scenes
It's time for the first of my rants:
In game cut scenes/cinematics and the worst offender of them, Oblivion games!
Let me start by making a blanket statement: I don't mind cut scenes. They make for a logical transition between acts of a game, especially if time has passed and can even be enjoyable at times. However, too many games are becoming increasingly dependant on cut scenes to convey information which could otherwise be brought out by exposition, game play, hidden clues etc.
The problem is that developers like Oblivion have increasingly started to use cut scenes to push their single player games into a very linear fashion. I played the original Bioware creations of Neverwinter Nights and Knights of the Old Republic to their conclusion. Oblivion then came in with the "2" versions of the games and took what was an enoyable experience and completely trashed them to the point where I cannot complete either game.
I'm an old school gamer. I expect my role playing games to have role playing in them, even if all the conversations you might have with an individual within the game only lead to a single conclusion (though often they did not.) I'm not sure if Oblivion just doesn't trust the intelligence of their audience, or if some marketing weenie took a look at a Blizzard RTS game which used cut scenes to further the plot, or they are just lazy, but they took two enjoyable games and comepletely destroyed the sequels.
I would love to see the time which they state the gameplay allows for, and then subtract the cut scenes to figure out how much actual gameplay there is. Because both of those games are incredibly weak on writing and they force you to view sometimes a percieved 10 + minutes of cut scenes which could have easily been achieved with maybe 16 options worth of dialog which brought you to 2 or three different conclusive paths. And no, I don't think watching a 2 minute cinematic, which then gives you a user clickable insteraction, which jumps into antoher cinematic, followed by another click and then a 3rd which resolves the plot in the direction which the developer wanted you to go meets the criterion for a role playing game.
For old school D&D players, the analogy I would use would be to compare a Judges Guild module to a TSR module.
At the time, I think the Judges Guild modules would run you 5-6 bucks compared to 3-5 for a TSR module.
Sure, TSR gave you a carboard stock cover which doubled as a fold out game masters screen with the dungeon map.
But the TSR module also gave you a single path.
Yes, there was some open endedness to some of their dungeons. You can go left, right or straight and each path lead you to a different area, but you always wound up at the same final destination.
A Judges Guild adventure was usually just that. You had probably 4-5 times the content of a TSR module designed to be played as a campaign. There would be multiple maps of different areas which you could adventure in the order you wanted. Sure, you had to complete certain tasks to unlock others.
But, more inportantly, JG trusted in the intelligence of it's players. They gave you a template that you could, with a little imagination, build years of adventuring from.
Now take a Bioware RPG. Is it linear? Absolutely! But the writing was done well enough that, while you would wind up at a final waypoint along the story tree, how and in what order you accomplished that was your own choice. And, along the journey, you uncovered more of the story/mystery through conversations with various NPC's.
Compare that to an Oblivion sequel. There is less open ended gameplay. A tackes you too B which takes you to C. And, in case you didn't know that this was the direction you were supposed to go, in a case where a Bioware conversation with 4 or 5 NPC's would gradually reveal the story, Oblivion force feeds you the story with a cut scene between your character and a single NPC, possibly bringing a 2nd into the conversation without your bidding.
The funny thing is, the folks at Oblivion are gamers. I've seen their potential employye questionairre. It asks what games you play not only PC, but RPG and Board Games. It just seems that they have yet to move beyond the TSR stage of design and into a much more open ended style which promotes not only good writing, but gives the user the illusion of control over the story.
In game cut scenes/cinematics and the worst offender of them, Oblivion games!
Let me start by making a blanket statement: I don't mind cut scenes. They make for a logical transition between acts of a game, especially if time has passed and can even be enjoyable at times. However, too many games are becoming increasingly dependant on cut scenes to convey information which could otherwise be brought out by exposition, game play, hidden clues etc.
The problem is that developers like Oblivion have increasingly started to use cut scenes to push their single player games into a very linear fashion. I played the original Bioware creations of Neverwinter Nights and Knights of the Old Republic to their conclusion. Oblivion then came in with the "2" versions of the games and took what was an enoyable experience and completely trashed them to the point where I cannot complete either game.
I'm an old school gamer. I expect my role playing games to have role playing in them, even if all the conversations you might have with an individual within the game only lead to a single conclusion (though often they did not.) I'm not sure if Oblivion just doesn't trust the intelligence of their audience, or if some marketing weenie took a look at a Blizzard RTS game which used cut scenes to further the plot, or they are just lazy, but they took two enjoyable games and comepletely destroyed the sequels.
I would love to see the time which they state the gameplay allows for, and then subtract the cut scenes to figure out how much actual gameplay there is. Because both of those games are incredibly weak on writing and they force you to view sometimes a percieved 10 + minutes of cut scenes which could have easily been achieved with maybe 16 options worth of dialog which brought you to 2 or three different conclusive paths. And no, I don't think watching a 2 minute cinematic, which then gives you a user clickable insteraction, which jumps into antoher cinematic, followed by another click and then a 3rd which resolves the plot in the direction which the developer wanted you to go meets the criterion for a role playing game.
For old school D&D players, the analogy I would use would be to compare a Judges Guild module to a TSR module.
At the time, I think the Judges Guild modules would run you 5-6 bucks compared to 3-5 for a TSR module.
Sure, TSR gave you a carboard stock cover which doubled as a fold out game masters screen with the dungeon map.
But the TSR module also gave you a single path.
Yes, there was some open endedness to some of their dungeons. You can go left, right or straight and each path lead you to a different area, but you always wound up at the same final destination.
A Judges Guild adventure was usually just that. You had probably 4-5 times the content of a TSR module designed to be played as a campaign. There would be multiple maps of different areas which you could adventure in the order you wanted. Sure, you had to complete certain tasks to unlock others.
But, more inportantly, JG trusted in the intelligence of it's players. They gave you a template that you could, with a little imagination, build years of adventuring from.
Now take a Bioware RPG. Is it linear? Absolutely! But the writing was done well enough that, while you would wind up at a final waypoint along the story tree, how and in what order you accomplished that was your own choice. And, along the journey, you uncovered more of the story/mystery through conversations with various NPC's.
Compare that to an Oblivion sequel. There is less open ended gameplay. A tackes you too B which takes you to C. And, in case you didn't know that this was the direction you were supposed to go, in a case where a Bioware conversation with 4 or 5 NPC's would gradually reveal the story, Oblivion force feeds you the story with a cut scene between your character and a single NPC, possibly bringing a 2nd into the conversation without your bidding.
The funny thing is, the folks at Oblivion are gamers. I've seen their potential employye questionairre. It asks what games you play not only PC, but RPG and Board Games. It just seems that they have yet to move beyond the TSR stage of design and into a much more open ended style which promotes not only good writing, but gives the user the illusion of control over the story.
Sunday, January 6, 2008
Movie review - Transformers
We saw Transformers last night on DVD for the second time, third when you count seeing it in the theater on my birthday.
Overall, it's still a heck of an enjoyable movie.
I'll be the first to admit, I'm not a Michael Bay hater. Yes, he has his shortcomings as a filmmaker and has some habits which I find annoying (I'll get to those in a bit.) However, I have yet to see a Michael Bay film which I have not come away from saying "I was entertained!" Granted, while I have Bad Boys 2 taped, I haven't gotten around to watching it.
And, it's that statement which is my ultimate criteria for movies: Was I entertained? And, to further clarify, entertained, for me, means did I enjoy the experience by getting caught up in the movie, even if it was a movie I came out of wanting to slit my wrists in utter depression due to the hopelessness that the movie conveyed? Frankly, if a movie has that power, then the answer is yes, I was entertained, even if I will never, ever watch that movie again.
Like him or hate him, and I'm aware that many people hate him, Michael Bay does movies in a very formulaic way and the Tranformers movie was no exception (spoilers follow):
The formula usually involves the following elements:
1. Several very inconoclastic shots, usually of an unnamed character who gives us the proverbial "view from the gallery." Transformers delivered this many times over, the two most obvious being the little girl who watches the Transformer (Jazz?) come out of her swimming pool and the unnamed screaming lady who, in slow motion, watches a Transformer rotate over her as it's firing its cannon. I actually like this technique of Bay's because he does it well. If it's poorly done, you get pulled out of the moment and the sequence is ruined. Bay consistently includes these shots in a such a way that it draws the viewer in further, giving them a view of the big picture from the eyes of someone we have no investment in.
2. Several moments which are designed to play on your emotions. I'm conflicted on these. Bay consitstently uses these shots, and they are usually affecting, but I really hate the blatent manipulation. An example would be at the end of the film when Josh Duramel's character get's dropped off to finally meet his daughter and see the wife he's been missing. The music sets the emotional scene and we are watching this tender moment of both love and happiness. However, with Michael Bay it's almost always over the top. Another example would be when Bumblebee gets injured in the final fight and crawls toward Megan Fox, his eyes appearing to blink with tears. That scene was dragged out for 5-10 seconds longer than need be to deliberately pull on our emotions. If there's one thing that does bother me about a Michael Bay film it's that he does not seem to trust his audience enough to decide if the scene is supposed to make them feel a certain way and he needs to force the issue. Michael, I realize you will never see this, but, have some faith in the general public and don't go overboard. When you do you turn your audience off because they do realize they are being manipulated or you just screw it up royally (I love Armageddon, however, every time that William Fitchner interupts the Ben Affleck/Liv Tyler reunion with his stupid request to shake her hand I want to throw my remote through the TV because he destroyed a perfectly good scene with that.)
3. Grandiose shots designed to put the viewer in a awed state: Once again, I'm torn on these. Bay does do them well, especially with the introduction of the twin shuttles in Armageddon, but, I always feel he goes overboard on them. Once again, it comes back to manipulation. You've set up this amazing shot, use the correct music to trigger emotion, and then hold it for too long. In the Transformers it was the final speech by Optimus that was overdone. Yes, it's a fantastic shot of the Transformers backlit by the setting sun, but I always feel that shot is done backward. He starts with Shia Lebouf and Megan Fox making out on top of Bumblebee (which, BTW is a kind of perverse image Michael. That's a living thing and while it is Shia in the middle of a MMF sandwich instead of Megan, the sexual connotations take auto-erotica to a level I didn't want to goto,) and then moves to the "we stand alone" shot of the remaining Transformers backlit by the setting sun before moving to Optimus. I always thought that shot should have started with Optimus, moved to the Transformers and then when he gets to the "new friends" part of the speech it should have gone to Shia and Megan on the ground under a tree with Bumblebee in the background turned AWAY from them.
4. Action scenes which are so over the top you are not only drawn in, but feel some investature in the moment. Transformers did not disappoint with these. From the Scorpionik (SP?) attack sequence in the desert with the warthogs screaming in, to the highway chase with the skating robots, to the final battle where all heck breaks loose, Transformers delivered these with classic Michael Bay form. Yes, he's very formulaic with his grand action scenes; they always have music to set the mood, there is always a slow motion sequence and stuff blows up in grandiose fashion. So what! They are fun and the main reason I am consistently entertained by his movies. Plain and simple, Michael Bay gets action sequences and does them well.
5. Music that conveys the moment. This is another thing Michael Bay does exceptionally well. He has an idea of what he wants in a scene and chooses the music which sets the mood. Whether its the inclusion of a song or, more often and orchestral soundtrack moment, Bay gets it. The last thing I want, as a viewer, is too feel like I've just come out theater having watched a 2 hour session of MTV videos with plot squeezed in between songs instead of commercials (Daredevil and 300 being two of the worst offenders in the recent past.) He also has a good sense of volume control as well as balance. One of the things I absolutely hate about most movies these days is when you get the over the top volume song which detracts from the next 6 lines of dialog because your ears can't adjust quickly enough to the contrast change. This is especially noticeable when viewing a DVD at home. If there's one thing I don't think several filmmakers get enough credit for (Kevin Smith and Michael Bay both come to mind) is balancing the audio so that you are not missing part of the movie due to auditory level adjustment.
So there's my "Michael Bay forumla for movies," in a nutshell.
As I've mentioned, Transformers fit this across the board. And, once again, it doesn't bother me.
The movie was fun.
I was entertained.
Overall, it's still a heck of an enjoyable movie.
I'll be the first to admit, I'm not a Michael Bay hater. Yes, he has his shortcomings as a filmmaker and has some habits which I find annoying (I'll get to those in a bit.) However, I have yet to see a Michael Bay film which I have not come away from saying "I was entertained!" Granted, while I have Bad Boys 2 taped, I haven't gotten around to watching it.
And, it's that statement which is my ultimate criteria for movies: Was I entertained? And, to further clarify, entertained, for me, means did I enjoy the experience by getting caught up in the movie, even if it was a movie I came out of wanting to slit my wrists in utter depression due to the hopelessness that the movie conveyed? Frankly, if a movie has that power, then the answer is yes, I was entertained, even if I will never, ever watch that movie again.
Like him or hate him, and I'm aware that many people hate him, Michael Bay does movies in a very formulaic way and the Tranformers movie was no exception (spoilers follow):
The formula usually involves the following elements:
1. Several very inconoclastic shots, usually of an unnamed character who gives us the proverbial "view from the gallery." Transformers delivered this many times over, the two most obvious being the little girl who watches the Transformer (Jazz?) come out of her swimming pool and the unnamed screaming lady who, in slow motion, watches a Transformer rotate over her as it's firing its cannon. I actually like this technique of Bay's because he does it well. If it's poorly done, you get pulled out of the moment and the sequence is ruined. Bay consistently includes these shots in a such a way that it draws the viewer in further, giving them a view of the big picture from the eyes of someone we have no investment in.
2. Several moments which are designed to play on your emotions. I'm conflicted on these. Bay consitstently uses these shots, and they are usually affecting, but I really hate the blatent manipulation. An example would be at the end of the film when Josh Duramel's character get's dropped off to finally meet his daughter and see the wife he's been missing. The music sets the emotional scene and we are watching this tender moment of both love and happiness. However, with Michael Bay it's almost always over the top. Another example would be when Bumblebee gets injured in the final fight and crawls toward Megan Fox, his eyes appearing to blink with tears. That scene was dragged out for 5-10 seconds longer than need be to deliberately pull on our emotions. If there's one thing that does bother me about a Michael Bay film it's that he does not seem to trust his audience enough to decide if the scene is supposed to make them feel a certain way and he needs to force the issue. Michael, I realize you will never see this, but, have some faith in the general public and don't go overboard. When you do you turn your audience off because they do realize they are being manipulated or you just screw it up royally (I love Armageddon, however, every time that William Fitchner interupts the Ben Affleck/Liv Tyler reunion with his stupid request to shake her hand I want to throw my remote through the TV because he destroyed a perfectly good scene with that.)
3. Grandiose shots designed to put the viewer in a awed state: Once again, I'm torn on these. Bay does do them well, especially with the introduction of the twin shuttles in Armageddon, but, I always feel he goes overboard on them. Once again, it comes back to manipulation. You've set up this amazing shot, use the correct music to trigger emotion, and then hold it for too long. In the Transformers it was the final speech by Optimus that was overdone. Yes, it's a fantastic shot of the Transformers backlit by the setting sun, but I always feel that shot is done backward. He starts with Shia Lebouf and Megan Fox making out on top of Bumblebee (which, BTW is a kind of perverse image Michael. That's a living thing and while it is Shia in the middle of a MMF sandwich instead of Megan, the sexual connotations take auto-erotica to a level I didn't want to goto,) and then moves to the "we stand alone" shot of the remaining Transformers backlit by the setting sun before moving to Optimus. I always thought that shot should have started with Optimus, moved to the Transformers and then when he gets to the "new friends" part of the speech it should have gone to Shia and Megan on the ground under a tree with Bumblebee in the background turned AWAY from them.
4. Action scenes which are so over the top you are not only drawn in, but feel some investature in the moment. Transformers did not disappoint with these. From the Scorpionik (SP?) attack sequence in the desert with the warthogs screaming in, to the highway chase with the skating robots, to the final battle where all heck breaks loose, Transformers delivered these with classic Michael Bay form. Yes, he's very formulaic with his grand action scenes; they always have music to set the mood, there is always a slow motion sequence and stuff blows up in grandiose fashion. So what! They are fun and the main reason I am consistently entertained by his movies. Plain and simple, Michael Bay gets action sequences and does them well.
5. Music that conveys the moment. This is another thing Michael Bay does exceptionally well. He has an idea of what he wants in a scene and chooses the music which sets the mood. Whether its the inclusion of a song or, more often and orchestral soundtrack moment, Bay gets it. The last thing I want, as a viewer, is too feel like I've just come out theater having watched a 2 hour session of MTV videos with plot squeezed in between songs instead of commercials (Daredevil and 300 being two of the worst offenders in the recent past.) He also has a good sense of volume control as well as balance. One of the things I absolutely hate about most movies these days is when you get the over the top volume song which detracts from the next 6 lines of dialog because your ears can't adjust quickly enough to the contrast change. This is especially noticeable when viewing a DVD at home. If there's one thing I don't think several filmmakers get enough credit for (Kevin Smith and Michael Bay both come to mind) is balancing the audio so that you are not missing part of the movie due to auditory level adjustment.
So there's my "Michael Bay forumla for movies," in a nutshell.
As I've mentioned, Transformers fit this across the board. And, once again, it doesn't bother me.
The movie was fun.
I was entertained.
Saturday, January 5, 2008
Why the Wii is winning
I've started and not finished this post several times.
The question can be asked, why the Wii? Why not go with the Xbox 360 or the PS3?
We own a PS2. My wife and I purchased it on our anniversery about 4 years ago with the intention of using DDR to get in shape and have fun. Bad knees have kept me from playing DDR for most of that time. We own about 10 titles for the PS2, most of them purchased by or for our kids. The only one which has held my attention for more than 20 minutes is Crazy Taxi.
Is this indicative of myself or the game machine?
I'd have to say mostly it's me.
I started gaming on a computer more than 25 years ago (1981 if you want to be exact.) Back then, it was all text based, with the occasional ascii game. You could also use a modem to get to MIT and play this game called Zork, if you had access to an academic service (I did.)
Even prior to that, I started playing Dungeons and Dragons back at the old White Box set.
As time has gone on, most of the games I find myself drawn to are story/puzzle/strategy based with the occasional sports simulation thrown in. However, unlike the character of Brodie in Mallrats, I would not, and have not left a warm, occupied, bed to go play on a video game, especially not a sports simulation.
When the PS3 was announced, I was interested, but more in the "shiny new toy" syndrome way. The Xbox has never really held any interest to me, the 360 less so since you have to pay for the HD DVD as an add-on. When the cost was announced for the PS3, I cringed.
When the Wii came out, I was interested, but not enough to wait in line to buy one. As time went on, and several of my co-workers purchased Wii's and raved about them, my curiosity level was raised. Then, last May, while wandering through Costco as the guests of family (we ended our Costco membership about 8 years prior when they stopped taking Discover Card, and renewed it that day) lo and behold, there was a Wii bundle for sale, and there were many in stock. So, on an impulse, I convinced my wife we should get one.
Having now played on the Xbox 360, PS3 and Wii ( the others courtesy of friends,) I now know why Nintendo is winning.
1. First and foremost, the darn thing is fun out of the box. Are the graphics on the included Wii Sports so spectacular that they make your eyes pop? Absolutely not. But the 5 games, plus training simulations plus Wii Fitness are all fun. Sure, there are frustrations with them, but that first night we had the Wii was the final performance (and the reason my wife's Costco card bearing relatives were in town to begin with,) of our oldest son's appearance as Motel in Fiddler on the Roof. I was taping the show and had arranged to get into the theater when dropping our son off for cast call an hour prior to the doors opening. As part of my taping, I was also reserving the best seats in the house (by my observance,) for my wife and her parents with the understanding they would arrive at the time the doors opened.
6:30 came and no family. People were streaming into the theater and giving me ugly looks as my camera bag and microphone stretched out over the premium seats.
6:45, still no family. I've now had to demurely say "yes these seats are taken" more than 20 times.
Finally at 6:52, they arrive. Their reason for being late? They were bowling on the Wii and so lost track of time that they also forgot to eat dinner (which they were supposed to do as well.)
As time has passed, we've purchased several games for the Wii and been given a few others. And I still keep coming back to the Wii Sports as the games I want to play.
With a PS3 I'd have made a much larger investment in money just to get the machine with a game, and thusfar I have not seen the "wow factor" game that makes me want to own one.
Same with the Xbox 360.
2. The Wii as exercise. Yes, I'm aware of the study which says exercizing on the Wii is minimally better than walking to the fridge to get a beer and snacks and you would be better off doing actual exercise. I also think the study is inherantly flawed.
First and foremost, I use the Wii for exercise. Is it my only form, no. However, you try and do the Wii Punching bag training exercises for boxing for over 15 minutes and see how you're doing at the end. Unless you are languidly sitting on the couch doing it, you will move, build up a sweat and get your heart racing.
The same with Tennis, though it can take longer to build up your heart rate.
Secondly, the Wii gets you up and moving. And, the more you move, the more likely you are to engage in more exercise, not neccessarily on the Wii. I do expect within 3 years you will start to see studies in gerentology that show elderly people living longer in rest home situations where the rest home has a Wii. Because, as they get up and move, even if it is to play a non-cardio game such as Bowling, it gets them up and moving, which increases their immune system and their ability to fight disease.
3. There is also the Wii as a theraputic/learning device. My wife dislocated her shoulder severely this summer. To the point where they were talking surgery. A lot of the exercises she was prescribed were mimicked by the Wii Tennis simulation for returning balls. When she mentioned this to her physical therapist, he suggested she try it for two weeks to see what could happen with the usual caveats about not overdoing it, if it hurts, stop etc. Two weeks later, he insisted she continue doing so as her arm was making remarkable progress. A month after that, she was out of physical therapy. As the Wii games and periphreals (i.e. the Wii Fit aka the Balance Board) advance, it's possible that more and more simulations can be created for range of motion therapy as well as the addition of games which can be used for testing simulation (i.e. I can easily see using the Wii as an aid to help people train for the SAT's by helping them visualize the math problems where train A starts at 45 miles away running at 8mph and B starts 85 miles away and runs at 19 mph etc.)
4. Though obvious, price really has something to do with it. Beyond the fact that it takes a lot less time to save up for a Wii, the $249 entry price makes it in the realm of possibilty of an "impulse" buy (which is what we did.)
5. Casual gaming. There are alot more causal gamers out there than hardcore gamers. If you're in doubt, take a look at sites like Pogo.com and Popcap.com. In 3 years Pogo has gone from the ugly red-headed stepchild of EA, shunted to a seperate building, to their highest money making
division. Popcap started modestly with download games and has since expanded to retail outlets. I would even go so far as to suggest that World of Warcraft is a casual game (more on this in a later post.) But, in short, WoW was the first MMO to make it fun out of the box without a steep learning curve, which attracted the casual gamer. Causal gamers don't think about state of the art graphics. They want games which they can use as an escape, but don't need to commit a large amount of time to playing. Nintendo brought that to them with both Wii Sports and Wii play, then followed it up with Big Brain Academy, Mario Party 8 and the Zelda training game for the Wii Zapper. And, from what we've seen so far, they are continuing the trend with the upcoming Wii Fit. Once I actually give my kids Super Mario Galaxy, I might have to include that in as well.
The question can be asked, why the Wii? Why not go with the Xbox 360 or the PS3?
We own a PS2. My wife and I purchased it on our anniversery about 4 years ago with the intention of using DDR to get in shape and have fun. Bad knees have kept me from playing DDR for most of that time. We own about 10 titles for the PS2, most of them purchased by or for our kids. The only one which has held my attention for more than 20 minutes is Crazy Taxi.
Is this indicative of myself or the game machine?
I'd have to say mostly it's me.
I started gaming on a computer more than 25 years ago (1981 if you want to be exact.) Back then, it was all text based, with the occasional ascii game. You could also use a modem to get to MIT and play this game called Zork, if you had access to an academic service (I did.)
Even prior to that, I started playing Dungeons and Dragons back at the old White Box set.
As time has gone on, most of the games I find myself drawn to are story/puzzle/strategy based with the occasional sports simulation thrown in. However, unlike the character of Brodie in Mallrats, I would not, and have not left a warm, occupied, bed to go play on a video game, especially not a sports simulation.
When the PS3 was announced, I was interested, but more in the "shiny new toy" syndrome way. The Xbox has never really held any interest to me, the 360 less so since you have to pay for the HD DVD as an add-on. When the cost was announced for the PS3, I cringed.
When the Wii came out, I was interested, but not enough to wait in line to buy one. As time went on, and several of my co-workers purchased Wii's and raved about them, my curiosity level was raised. Then, last May, while wandering through Costco as the guests of family (we ended our Costco membership about 8 years prior when they stopped taking Discover Card, and renewed it that day) lo and behold, there was a Wii bundle for sale, and there were many in stock. So, on an impulse, I convinced my wife we should get one.
Having now played on the Xbox 360, PS3 and Wii ( the others courtesy of friends,) I now know why Nintendo is winning.
1. First and foremost, the darn thing is fun out of the box. Are the graphics on the included Wii Sports so spectacular that they make your eyes pop? Absolutely not. But the 5 games, plus training simulations plus Wii Fitness are all fun. Sure, there are frustrations with them, but that first night we had the Wii was the final performance (and the reason my wife's Costco card bearing relatives were in town to begin with,) of our oldest son's appearance as Motel in Fiddler on the Roof. I was taping the show and had arranged to get into the theater when dropping our son off for cast call an hour prior to the doors opening. As part of my taping, I was also reserving the best seats in the house (by my observance,) for my wife and her parents with the understanding they would arrive at the time the doors opened.
6:30 came and no family. People were streaming into the theater and giving me ugly looks as my camera bag and microphone stretched out over the premium seats.
6:45, still no family. I've now had to demurely say "yes these seats are taken" more than 20 times.
Finally at 6:52, they arrive. Their reason for being late? They were bowling on the Wii and so lost track of time that they also forgot to eat dinner (which they were supposed to do as well.)
As time has passed, we've purchased several games for the Wii and been given a few others. And I still keep coming back to the Wii Sports as the games I want to play.
With a PS3 I'd have made a much larger investment in money just to get the machine with a game, and thusfar I have not seen the "wow factor" game that makes me want to own one.
Same with the Xbox 360.
2. The Wii as exercise. Yes, I'm aware of the study which says exercizing on the Wii is minimally better than walking to the fridge to get a beer and snacks and you would be better off doing actual exercise. I also think the study is inherantly flawed.
First and foremost, I use the Wii for exercise. Is it my only form, no. However, you try and do the Wii Punching bag training exercises for boxing for over 15 minutes and see how you're doing at the end. Unless you are languidly sitting on the couch doing it, you will move, build up a sweat and get your heart racing.
The same with Tennis, though it can take longer to build up your heart rate.
Secondly, the Wii gets you up and moving. And, the more you move, the more likely you are to engage in more exercise, not neccessarily on the Wii. I do expect within 3 years you will start to see studies in gerentology that show elderly people living longer in rest home situations where the rest home has a Wii. Because, as they get up and move, even if it is to play a non-cardio game such as Bowling, it gets them up and moving, which increases their immune system and their ability to fight disease.
3. There is also the Wii as a theraputic/learning device. My wife dislocated her shoulder severely this summer. To the point where they were talking surgery. A lot of the exercises she was prescribed were mimicked by the Wii Tennis simulation for returning balls. When she mentioned this to her physical therapist, he suggested she try it for two weeks to see what could happen with the usual caveats about not overdoing it, if it hurts, stop etc. Two weeks later, he insisted she continue doing so as her arm was making remarkable progress. A month after that, she was out of physical therapy. As the Wii games and periphreals (i.e. the Wii Fit aka the Balance Board) advance, it's possible that more and more simulations can be created for range of motion therapy as well as the addition of games which can be used for testing simulation (i.e. I can easily see using the Wii as an aid to help people train for the SAT's by helping them visualize the math problems where train A starts at 45 miles away running at 8mph and B starts 85 miles away and runs at 19 mph etc.)
4. Though obvious, price really has something to do with it. Beyond the fact that it takes a lot less time to save up for a Wii, the $249 entry price makes it in the realm of possibilty of an "impulse" buy (which is what we did.)
5. Casual gaming. There are alot more causal gamers out there than hardcore gamers. If you're in doubt, take a look at sites like Pogo.com and Popcap.com. In 3 years Pogo has gone from the ugly red-headed stepchild of EA, shunted to a seperate building, to their highest money making
division. Popcap started modestly with download games and has since expanded to retail outlets. I would even go so far as to suggest that World of Warcraft is a casual game (more on this in a later post.) But, in short, WoW was the first MMO to make it fun out of the box without a steep learning curve, which attracted the casual gamer. Causal gamers don't think about state of the art graphics. They want games which they can use as an escape, but don't need to commit a large amount of time to playing. Nintendo brought that to them with both Wii Sports and Wii play, then followed it up with Big Brain Academy, Mario Party 8 and the Zelda training game for the Wii Zapper. And, from what we've seen so far, they are continuing the trend with the upcoming Wii Fit. Once I actually give my kids Super Mario Galaxy, I might have to include that in as well.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
