Askew

  • Reading time:2 mins read

I just realized that most artists only really have one thing to say. If that. Everything they do is just a refinement of, or another aspect of, that single contribution that they have (that being their own selves).

I suppose this should be obvious. We’re all individuals. The more rounded individuals, perhaps, have more corners of their minds to lay bare.

All the same: Miyamoto has never really varied since his original ideas for Donkey Kong and Mario Bros. Those added up into Super Mario Bros., and then Miyamoto took things a step further to hit upon The Legend of Zelda. Since 1987, it’s all just been refinement. He doesn’t have much to say that we haven’t already heard.

Same goes for Rieko Kodama, really (as much as I enjoy her work). She’s still kind of working with the tools she devised a decade and a half ago. BioWare did a lot with their first RPG, but they haven’t done a lot since then.

Hitchcock kept whacking out variations on the same two or three themes. Most of his work involved finding people he enjoyed and allowing them to do whatever they wanted within his vague descriptions. The Beatles had a lot to say by the end, but that comes from the chemistry of five key voices (including George Martin) and all of their experiences.

Miyamoto did his part. He’s done now. Hitchcock did his part. So is he. So are the Beatles. (Really, what of great merit have any of them done since the early ’70s?) They’ve each come out of nowhere with a new perspective and pointed out untapped possibilities within their own respective contexts. And in so doing, they’ve helped the context change.

And the world keeps moving. If they don’t, they’re left as a noble milestone; as a reminder of the need for perspective. Not as a template, however. Anything else is idolatry.

And that’s where all of the problems lie.

I’ve got a headache.

I Can See Your Moves

  • Reading time:5 mins read

I’ve just replayed ’96, and I’ve got to say that it’s the most intriguing in the series aside from 2001. It’s where everything came together right, for the first time. And SNK had to revise just about everything they’d established in ’94 and ’95 in order to make the game.

It makes me wish all the more that 2002 had been a concluding plot chapter for the NESTS era, as it rightfully should have been. The pattern would be complete, then.

’99 established the new gameplay system, with the strikers and all. It was nice and original, and a good idea. 2000 was almost the exact same game (as ’95 was to ’94), only with the rough spots polished away. Just as ’96 revolutionized the early series, 2001 revolutionized the later series. ’97 took what was established in ’96 and didn’t add much to it in terms of gameplay — but rather expanded it and used it as the backing mechanics for an orgy of plot exposition and drama.

Then ’98 — the first dream match — was almost the same game as ’97 (just compare the selection screens of the two!), only with an extra nine characters (every left-over non-boss character from ’94-’96 aside from Eiji), “classic” versions of most of the main characters (with their pre-’96 move lists), and a bunch of extra animations and interactions and energy added in.

That makes ’98 more or less “’97 DX”, in its structure. And at the same time, it’s a kind of a compilation of everything KoF up until that time. Not unlike the upcoming Street Fighter II compilation for the PS2. Aside from all of the characters and character versions above, it also has both major game systems up to that point (“Advanced” and “Extra” — which correspond to the pre-’96 and post-’95 engines). Basically, however you like your (pre-NESTS) KoF, ’98 has it. All it lacks is plot. But it’s got extra heaps of charm to make up for the loss (if you’re familiar with the characters).

That could have been the case with 2003, for the series’ tenth anniversary. 2002 would have put to use the refined system introduced in 2001, and cleanly finished off that plot arc. 2003 would have been the ultimate KoF dream match, covering the whole history of KoF — or at least everything that’s happened since ’98. Every major non-boss character. Every major game system. At least two distinct move lists for most of the major characters.

Then 2004 — the first Atomiswave game — could be the start of the next plotline. A nice clean beginning, on new hardware.

But, no.

Anyway. To illustrate, the pattern goes more or less like this:

[1a] [1b] [2a] [2b] [x] [1a] [1b] [2a] [x]
’94 ’95 ’96 ’97 ’98 ’99 ’00 ’01 n/a ’02

[1a] defines a new game system. It’s a rough draft. A little awkward. A few obvious problems to work out. Still, by virtue of its new ideas it’s got some energy and life to it.

[1b] is the refinement of that system. It’s the edited version, more or less. Most of the overt kinks have been knocked out. Problem is, it’s almost the same as the previous game. The game is nice, but one is left waiting for the point.

[2a] is the second draft. This is a total overhaul of the system introduced two games earlier. While the previous game was merely a revision, the goal of which was to fix the obvious problems in the first incarnation of the game system, this game scraps the earlier system altogether and rephrases the original ideas in a far more elegant form. This is more or less what they tried to do two games earlier, but hadn’t quite figured out how to express yet.

[2b] is to [2a] as [1b] is to [1a]. More or less. Now that they’ve finally got the system down, they don’t really have to think about it anymore and can just use it to tell an interesting story.

[x] is where we clear out the closet. Tally what’s been accomplished so far, while we figure out what to do next.

The NESTS saga never really got either a [2b] or an [x]. And it needed both, in order to work satisfactorily. Instead, it got abbreviated by a train wreck.

As you can both gather and imagine anyway, it’s the “a” chapters which do more for me. Especially the revised ones, where SNK (or Eolith/Brezza) figured out what they wanted to say. The “b” ones tend to bore me a little (particularly the “a” ones), since they’re creative resting periods. It’s all just futzing. And honestly, polish tends to annoy me. I like things rough; it leaves the character in. EDIT: (Of course, some things manage to combine both roughness and polish at the same time! HOW CAN YOU LOSE!)

Hell. I might as well post this, while I’m here.

Here comes the sun

  • Reading time:5 mins read

Just to let you know: Henrik Galeen is the fellow who invented the whole sunlight + vampires = unhappy and/or dead vampires device. I thought it likely that Nosferatu was the origin of this cinematic convenience. The commentary track on the DVD has confirmed this for me.

While we’re on the subject…

Konami pretty much seems to have ignored [Sonia Belmont] based on the supposedly bad game she inhabited (good character design and scenario aside)…

Actually, Igarashi wrote her game out of the official canon because he thought it was too far-fetched for a woman to be an action hero during the period in which the game was set. There’s an interview on Gamers where you can find these statements.

Aside from the obvious logistical strangeness here (since when were the Belmonts your average peasants?), Igarashi seems to be overlooking an awful lot of potential for character and story depth.

A woman would have to be all the stronger — all the more of a hero — to hold up against the repressive society of the time, and all of the fear and persecution she’d probably face. The stronger she’d get, the more that people would fear and resent her.

Thus the Belmonts were chased out of Transylvania after Dark Night Prelude/Legends, and thus Trevor/Ralph had to be called back in Akumajou Denetsu/Dracula’s Curse.

At the outset of that game, Trevor is kneeling by a shrine, praying. He could be talking to his dead mother, asking for the strength to follow in her stead.

I suppose an action game doesn’t need to go that deep, however.

I also suppose it doesn’t help much that Igarashi is filtering all of this through his own Japanese mindset.

Note that, as far as I know, Sonia still exists as a character in the official timeline. If so, however, she’s been demoted to little more than Trevor/Ralph’s mother.

He seems to care a lot about the atmosphere and continuity of Castlevania and the few Castlevania games that have had historical errors have all been the ones that Igarashi hasn’t worked on, such as CV64 with its turn of the 20th century biker skeletons.

Now, I really like Igarashi and respect what he’s trying to do with the series. Again, though, this doesn’t seem a necessary change to me. If anything, the storyline seems stronger with her in than with her out. If nothing else, she opens up a lot of intriguing possibilities.

Igarashi makes the occasional vague reference to historical accuracy, but he’s hardly a stickler. Thus the wailing guitars in Symphony of the Night and the classical music in Lament of Innocence (each anachronistic by at least one hundred fifty years — and more like five or six hundred in the latter case). There are all kinds of weird details in Harmony of Dissonance, like phonographs and elevators. The list goes on.

And even within the game’s internal world, Igarashi is willing to break form if it suits him. The “Spell Fusion” system in Harmony of Dissonance serves as a sort of a placeholder in terms of gameplay systems. It helps to explain whence Richter’s and the later Belmonts’ Item Crash techniques originate, while it makes clear what happened to the Belnades bloodline once it merged with that of the Belmonts. (That is, it went dormant until Juste found it.)

So, given that Lament of Innocence takes place several hundred years before Sypha was ever born, why did Igarashi put a Spell Fusion system in the game? Because it makes the game more interesting.

To be sure, he originally wanted the game to be straight out whip-and-subweapons action. That would have made it more accurate. He said that was a little too dull, though. So, with a shrug, there goes continuity.

What I’m saying is that his explanation doesn’t really hold water at face value. It’s a fictional world; you can do whatever you like with it.

It’s a convenient sound bite, yes, and there may be some element of truth to it — but he’s got some other reason. If you go strictly by what he says, basically what it translates to is “I just don’t want a female lead in my series.”

So. Is he just a jerk? Does he have issues with women? Is he gay? (Hell, Soma Cruz might as well be a woman. Maybe that’s how he likes it.)

Perhaps it’s something more mundane — like politics. Notice that he doesn’t include in his official timeline any game produced by either the (now-defunct) Kobe or Nagoya studios. In the case of Kobe, this is understandable. They kind of screwed up whatever they touched, even in the case of the rather enjoyable Circle of the Moon. But Dark Night Prelude took special care to adhere to the continuity established up to that point. So that would seem a curious explanation.

Maybe it’s some other problem entirely. Maybe he just doesn’t like that plot thread. I don’t know. I suppose I can’t, unless he lets something slip.

I doubt he’s written the game off for any really powerful concerns about historical accuracy, though. Nor does the quality issue seem right to me, given what other games he does choose to include (like the two Dracula Denetsu games).

So, as before, that just leaves one to marvel at how strange his statement is.

Do not inject opinion.

  • Reading time:1 mins read

Ho ho! I am currently deriving great amusement from Strunk and White’s The Elements of Style. Where has this book hidden for the past twenty-five years of my life? In E.B. White’s coffin, perhaps?

Jolly good.

Wolfman Rock

  • Reading time:1 mins read

I have rediscovered that Terry Bogard is supposed to be 35 in Mark of the Wolves.

Aha.

His birthday is March 15, 1973.

Aha.

So. This seems to concretely support the other convoluted-if-logical reasons I’ve been going by, to conclude that Mark of the Wolves must take place in 2008 and that the (canonical) Real Bout tournament was held in 1998 (in between KoF years).

As an effort to build up my informational self-reliance (and thereby cut down on the irritation of searching for data), I’ve been building up a database of the vital statistics for every character in the modern-day SNK continuity. (I’ve most of the KoF and FF characters logged at this point.)

Do you know Kim Jae Hoon’s special talent? I do! (It’s reciting pi to the 27th decimal place.) How about Lawrence Blood’s favourite dish? (Beef stew.)

Oh, this is all so very useful that I feel I shall burst!

Tragedy

  • Reading time:1 mins read

From tender cradle,
Blueberry bagel
Why do you leap
From knifey slaughter to
Damp dishwater
For besotted food I weep.

It’s torrentulating outside. Could this be hurricane Residue?

  • Reading time:1 mins read

The Good:

Old English gōd has a Germanic source; it is related to Dutch goed and German gut.

The Ugly:

Ugly is from Old Norse uggligr ‘to be dreaded’, from ugga ‘to dread’, therefore the primary sense reflects the effect on the observer rather than the appearance itself of the person or object observed.

And The Bad:

The source of this derogatory adjective is not altogether clear but is perhaps Old English bǽddel ‘hermaphrodite’ or ‘womanish man’, and so it probably owes its semantic core to homophobic feelings. The sense is refelcted in the obsolete word badling (Old English) which was an ‘effeminate or worthless man’.

Source: The Oxford Dictionary of Word Histories; Glynnis Chantrell, ed. Oxford University Press (UK), 2002

In contrast with hedgehogs

  • Reading time:3 mins read

OH JESUS THE FARMHOUSE IS EXACTLY THE SAME!

The barn, same architecute. Same placement. Windmill, exactly the same. Farmhouse itself: run down in exactly the same way. For all I know, all they did was trace over one of the old illustrations.

How unexpected.

I mean. There’s faithful adaptation, and there’s… something more than that.

Basically the only real alterations so far, from Mirage volume 1, have been for the better — expansion of Shredder’s and Stockman’s roles; the addition of Hun; an extra half-season of character building before the first big showdown. All of the TCRI stuff saved for season 2 (after season 1 will have focused on the entire original Shredder storyline).

Looks like the Stockman stuff from volume 2 will be worked into the upcoming Return to New York plot. Fine enough. Not a bad place for it; just get rid of all of the key season 1 villains at the same time, so we can get some closure and move on to the next big plot without any regrets.

I imagine that there should be more than enough material with the Fugitoid (assuming he’s around) and Triceratons and the Utroms to fill up season 2 — especially given the way that the animation team’s been operating so far. They’ve proved that they can run with a concept and flesh it out better than Easman and Laird ever really did.

What’ll that leave us with, for season three (assuming it’s coming)? How about City at War? Seems perfect; a return to Earth, and the setting of the first season. The remaining Foot will have been in chaos while they’ve been gone (in this case, whatever corner of space the Triceratons are found — as opposed to Northampton, lounging around for several years).

It’s the next big plot arc in the official canon. The series will be closing on episode fifty by the beginning of season three. Issue #50 is where the C@W arc begins, in the comic (although there’s about thirty issues of one-off meandering by random authors, in place of the paced development of the TV series). Yes! This will be a good thing.

I need to calm down.

Ahem.

Now I’m going to watch North by Northwest. And then, maybe the semi-yet-not-really-restored version of Nosferatu (for the sake of contrast with the other version that I own).

And then — hell, maybe Secret Agent? I don’t know.

I’ll just play it by ear.

tension

  • Reading time:1 mins read

At the end of KoF2000, I expect Zero to address the winning team:

“I’m sure you’re all wondering why I called you here today…”

And that’s the major problem with the game. The only really big one, but enough to keep it from the top tier.

Game Artists’ Manifesto

  • Reading time:10 mins read

Skies of Arcadia — there’s little I did in that game that didn’t result in something rather wondrous. And little that didn’t feel important in some way. Everything about Arcadia, it’s set up to build anticipation and wonder. Even just the dungeon and town design.

Take that ruin near the beginning; the tower where the moonstone lands, just after the intro events. There’s this long walkway, above water. The camera follows behind Vyse’s shoulders. There’s a fish-eye effect, which seems to make the path stretch on forever. And way on the other end is the dungeon. As Vyse runs toward it, his feet and elbows flail back toward the camera. He seems eager to get where he’s going. And we’re following him, seeing what he sees. It’s not really that far, but there’s this buildup of tension as you approach. And — inside, it’s one of the first real 3D dungeon environments I’d encountered in a console RPG.

That is to say: it takes its third dimension into account. As it it’s a real space, with is own logic. As you progress, you begin to understand the importance of features that you didn’t more than notice before; elements of the dungeon’s structure. And eventually, you solve it like a Rubick’s cube of sorts. You’ve unlocked its secrets, and mastered some skills, and begun to own some space.

It leads you on, but it does so by trusting you to follow your intuition. And when you do that, you’re rewarded. That is what is glorious about the game. It is built to reward curiosity, and gut instinct. And it does a great job at creating that curiosity to begin with. That is its genius. Then there’s the fact that most of the elements that are required to understand are in plain view through most of the game — it’s just that you need to play the game, to understand the significance of everything in the world well enough to put it all together. It’s a real place, and you get to know it by living there.

By the end of the game, there’s this sense of great enlightenment. So that’s why the world is the way it is. And — there’s still more left to discover. It leaves one with the feeling of possibility. Like anything could be out there, if one just were to work hard enough to find it. It’s incredibly inspirational. And this is all… intentional. Maybe not fully conscious, but it’s part of the game’s design.

Part of this comes from the protagonist, Vyse. There aren’t a lot of positive models in modern videogames. Not a lot of hope. After all of this cynical angsty Squareish teenage punk nonsense, it’s refreshing to see a lead who is actually a hero. Who has some spirit. It makes me feel like… I can do things. It’s all about attitude. That is to say, what you make of your situation. I feel that he’s the condensed center of Kodama’s message to her audience: Never give up. Never look down. Be proud. There’s always a way.

It’s not just the actual events within the game — it’s the strength of the conceptual significance behind them. I mean. It’s fiction. But fiction illustrates a lot about normal life. One of the best traits of fiction is the capacity to illustrate possibiliy. Whether this is tangible possibility, or just the emotional sense for where it comes from and what it means.

This isn’t something that you honestly get from most videogames. I’ve only gotten it from a handful. The original Zelda. Phantasy Star II. Riven. Skies of Arcadia. They all have made me look at the world differently. They’ve strengthened me, personally, in one way or another. That’s a sign of pretty good literature, I’d say.

I find it really interesting that Kodama is responsible for two of the games on that list. She… well. There’s a reason why I cite her as my favourite game creator. Shenmue has a bit of that, although its clunky (if endearing) AM2-ish edges keep it at a bit of an emotional distance.

The reason why I cite these games as amongst the best I’ve played is because they aren’t content with just being videogames, as such. They carry a deeper meaning. And not a contrived one, just for the purpose of being “deep”. They… stretch outside the boundaries of their medium and do something, emotionally. They actually speak some pretty inspiring messages to their audience, if the audience is willing to listen.

Most games are too calculated. Most games are designed by programmers. Or worse, by people who want to make videogames. Kodama and Miyamoto are both artists, foremost. Miyamoto has become… entrenched in Miyamoto in recent years, unfortunately. Still, he started as a slacker art school kid who didn’t even know that the company he was joining made videogames. Kodama didn’t exactly know what Sega did either, from what she says.

Rand and Robyn Miller, behind Myst — well. They certainly didn’t set out to be game designers. And by the time they’d gone through their first rough draft (that being Myst itself), they had amassed a pretty huge trove of mythology. They just… wanted to make their own world, with its own history and logic. And all of that work came to fruition in their second game.

This stuff, you can’t teach it. Being taught means being told “this is how to do things”. Generally speaking. Learning, on the other hand, means coming to recognize the organic patterns behind things and how to relate with them. It’s about communication. This isn’t something that can ever be pressed into you. It’s something you have to have the will to seek out on your own. The most someone can do is to set all of the right pieces before you, and to illustrate what they might mean. But it’s up to you to approach, and to add those pieces to what you’ve already collected. And to pick up the hints as to what else they might imply about you and your world.

It’s just like how you can’t tell a person how to write a novel. Or else you’ll get… a bunch of form-feed novels. The best way to learn is to simply have the right environment. To have the right materials around. To be given enough context and enough carrots to inspire you to look for meaning on your own — to care about the world, and about life. And to have someone or something you can use to reorient you, whenever you’re lost. And this is why art is so very important. That’s part of what it does — it provides some of that context. It helps to hint you in the right direction to finding your own meaning in life.

Art is actually a strange term. It’s rarely used correctly. Even I misuse it. Art is a process, more than a thing. A thing cannot Be art, in and of itself. Art comes in the process of interpretation of that thing, by the individual. It’s a way of looking at the world, really. As is science. Hamlet is not art, unto itself. It is art To Me, because I appreciate it as such. Because its meanings are strong enough, and I’m able to find something within them that has relevancy to my life. There is no objective Art. By its very nature, art is subjective. It’s when people try to put art on a pedestal that it gets… well, pretentious.

Something to think about: the only way you know the world is through your own senses, and your own understanding of the world. Whether the world really exists, you can’t know. The only basis for verification that you have is your own self. Objectivity — removal of one’s self from the picture at hand — is useful for understanding the inner workings of a system within the world that you perceive. However — whether or not thost things really exist, that you choose to be objective about, really comes down to a subjective decision. Therefore: in order to gain understanding of the world, the first step should be to search for what the world means to you. Through that, you can do anything else. You can play with your subsets of objectivity all you like. Of course — once objective understanding is established, that automatically gets kneaded back into your overall subjective understanding of life, your world, and what sense it all makes.

Science can, in a very real sense, be considered an art — inasmuch as it is a subset of the same methodology of understanding, with its own unique behaviors — just as philosophy differs from painting, differs from film direction, yet all are the same thing in the end. It’s all life, really. It’s all about understanding, and communication.

Videogames, too often, are held as objects; as important for their own sake. It’s easy to be fetishistic about them. I certainly am, at times. This is a problem of interpretation, all across the board — on the part of the “consumer” (read: the audience), as well as the critics as well as those who actually produce the games. The average videogame is no more important, artistically, than the average Hollywood explode-a-thon. Or romantic comedy, or whatever other tired formula you like. All the same.

Now. There’s something to learn from that as it is! You know what they say: there’s more to learn from bad art, than from good; from carelessness, compared to compassion. Provided that you’re willing to put in the effort to find it. However: something needs to change.

If this medium is ever going to become respectable, and to come unto its own as a form of expression — we need more people communicating through it. And using it as a medium to inspire understaning. We need to change our expectations, and stop considering videogames as important for their own sake, rather than for the the sake of the meaning they contain for us personally. And for the sake of the life which goes into them as an outlet for their creators.

Comfort is a dead end. Life is change. The moment you stop, you die. Either inside or outside. The body itself is ever changing; it’s different from one day to the next. All of the matter in your body now will be gone in seven years. You’ll technically be a completely different person. The moment that’s no longer true – it’s the same thing. It’s just the nature of life. Stasis doesn’t fit into that.

Gradually, I’m allowing more and more change into my life. And the more I let in (within my tolerance levels), the more I indeed feel that life. The more I learn to appreciate it, simply for what it is.

Videogames have the potential to convey so much meaning. And it’s not really a medium that’s been tapped well, on either end of the divide. Maybe I can help bridge the gap a bit. I don’t know. Help to give people one more outlet, to gain and express meaning for their lives. I guess… I’m pretty much doing the same thing.

Myau Mix

  • Reading time:3 mins read

So. I’ve got Phantasy Star – Generation: 1. I still have no PS2, let alone one ready for Japanese games.

However: I can make some assessments based upon the packaging.

Like, well — the packaging is rather classy.

The whole “SEGA AGES” stripe on the left makes it look like a “best of PS2” re-release of some sort. The manual is oddly thin. Aside from that, this seems… more or less real.

The book is in full-colour. Inside rests a cardboard leaflet, to stick into that SEGA AGES binder which you might recall. This contains a fair bit of rudimentary information about Phantasy Star, and a recent photo of Kodama and Naka, holding the Mark III version of the game. Naka’s head is much bigger than Kodama’s. It seems a little odd to see them together, after so long.

I wonder who’s pictured in the “creator” box for Monaco GP, or Fantasy Zone. Hm.

The front of the manual is a full-page image of the cover illustrator by that PSO artist from Sonic Team. This picture is actually larger than the version on the front cover of the DVD case, given that it doesn’t have to account for either the PS2 ID border at the top or the SEGA AGES border on the side.

It’s — well, it’s what the cover would look like if it weren’t smooshed over. And it looks very nice. The new version of the Phantasy Star logo — again, the word that comes to me is “classy”. It’s a softer and icier redraw of the original logo, with the PSO-style three-planet Algol swoop in the background and the “generation” number as a misty underline. It works well.

The disc art is typical; blue and black. Looks like a Dreamcast game. The back cover shows an illustration of Lutz without his robe. His underlying outfit looks like something that Legolas might dorn. It’s got… leaves. It’s green and blue.

The packaging points out, from every corner, that this release is the first in the SEGA-AGES series (including a stripe on the spine — meant to cause the game to stand out and match the rest of the set, if you display your DVD cases on a shelf) yet somehow this doesn’t seem obtrusive, or annoying — as undoubtedly it will, if this series comes to the West. The game retains its own identity and dignity as a self-contained entity, while it suggests a new format for both of its sequels and stands as the test case for the larger SEGA AGES line.

A lot of care seems to have gone into this, particularly for a budget release. That’s really the overall feeling that I get. This is obviously geared for the Sega aficionado, even with the casual browser price.

More impressions when I actually play the darned thing.

PAC NEEDS FOOD BADLY!

  • Reading time:1 mins read

There is an intrinsic difference between the Asteroids/Centipede model of game design, and the Space Invaders/Pac-Man one. It’s the latter, somewhat less flexible, design sensibility (through a Miyamoto filter) which has most directly evolved into our current ideas about console and arcade games. I’m not entirely sure if this is ideal, although it’s lent some mass appeal to the medium.

I wonder how things might’ve been different if the American model had continued to evolve into the modern era. If we’d gotten a chance to hone it as well as the Japanese model has been (up to the painfully entrenched form that it’s in now).

I’m too tired to illustrate. I might, later.

I’m sure some of you out there already are tracing my thought patterns, however.

I think it’s kind of interesting.

Again. Probably the solution is to combine the two sensibilities. Retro and Silicon Knights remain the test cases for a rather different kind of a merger (that being the quickly-tiring Miyamoto school and the modern Western PC-oriented mindset). I wonder what’d happen if we were to work back in some of the Ed Logg mentality.

Death and Revision

  • Reading time:3 mins read

Out of curiosity, I rented (for free!) the theatrical release of Fellowship of the Ring. Of course, the disc was scratched all to hell — so I was only able to take in about the first twenty minutes before my DVD player began to freak out.

I think I might need to clean the thing, soon; even some discs which should be fine are giving it problems.

At any rate — aside from the vapid extras (which I’m afraid I couldn’t tolerate in their entirety), my main target was a comparison of the original cut of the film to the one with which I am more familiar.

Conclusion, from what I see, and the memories it’s causing to resurface:

hot damn, was this thing improved.

The whole beginning portion seems to be edited such as to construe Gandalf as the main character of the movie. His interactions with Frodo are abbreviated, sped up, and depersonalized. Near-all of Bilbo’s characterization has been omitted, dragging him down to the level of a disposable plot device with whom Gandalf briefly interacts on his personal mission to the shire. Frodo only becomes a factor once Gandalf has been established, and even then he’s not illustrated as much.

The editing is more abrupt and disorienting. It feels hurried. Not just in comparison; I remember feeling this way in the theater.

Basically: the warmth is removed, as are character relationships. The movie isn’t set up as well. It progresses too quickly.

And then there’s the whole visual aspect. The theatrical version just isn’t edited with the care of the extended cut. There are a number of “new” or alternate shots (from my perspective, going back) which don’t sit as well in the frame, or are of questionable value. You can tell that Jackson spent an extra year on the longer edit, smoothing things over; revising and selecting exactly what was needed to tell the story as well as possible. Heck, even the colours are richer.

The result is a far more well-made film, from just about any direction.

No pun intended.

As such: given how distinctively non-plussed I was with the theatrical cut of The Two Towers, I’m now even more curious about the extended version. It’s not just that material was added to FotR; the entire thing was carefully honed. Almost every edit, shot, and overdub was reconsidered. And the result was that the entire focus of the movie was shifted in the right direction — mostly from what amounts to a handful of rather subtle revisions; partially due to the necessary added material.

You could call the theatrical cut the sloppy first draft of the film, slapped in a can to placate the studio while Jackson continued his work.

So. On that note, I’d like a similar change of focus in the second film. I’d like the editing to give me less of a headache. I’d like to see a more deliberate movie, which lurks beneath the surface of the mess that we saw rushed to the screen.

I think it’s there.

We’ll see.

Movie Time

  • Reading time:1 mins read

A few more:

  • The Secret Lives of Dentists: Sure.
  • 28 Days Later…: I concur with Tim.
  • Respiro: … Um. I suppose?
  • Northfork: No. I wouldn’t say so.

Dentists reminds me of a French film. It’s too emotionally sophisticated to seem American. It’s not an amazing film; just a good one. It’s an adult one. It’s worth seeing, just to show that we can, hypothetically, grow up over here.

Here comes another pizza! Watch out, world!

Journalism: The Videogame / Chapter 2 – Role Playing

  • Reading time:1 mins read

by [name redacted]

Videogames are a form of human expression. You can call it art, if you like. You can deny that and call it entertainment. “Art” is merely what happens when the listener starts to apply that entertainment to his own life.

What amazes me is that, as things are now, so few do seem to be listening. We demand and we superficially memorize and cover, yet we’re not willing to put the effort in and meet the games or the people behind them halfway. When we review, we review games as product. As a channel for discussion, we’ve become a weird mix of free PR and advertising, and the latest issue of consumer reports.

Our message is that videogames are objects. The people behind them are their manufacturers, both in a literal and a figurative sense. Our major challenge, then, is to make the leap from understanding videogames as things to viewing them as ideas.

( Continue reading at Insert Credit )