Tag: Opinion (page 5 of 8)

Doing Bad Things Well

Courtesy HBO

There are lots of stories out there with vampires in, but few keep me coming back for more. I only made it through the first few chapters of Twilight. I haven’t touched anything related to the Cirque du Freak. And as much as I think that the Coppola/Oldman Dracula from 1992 is something of an ur-text for how vampires should be portrayed, I only watch it every couple of years.

True Blood is different. It’s not just the fact that it’s doled out to us episodically or that it’s on HBO, if you know what I mean. I could point to broad things like “scary good writing” or “excellent production values” (the occasional botched special effect aside) but I think there’s more to it. Let’s sink our fangs in a bit deeper.

Realistic Relationships

Courtesy HBO

Now, obviously, I’m not referring to a relationship between a vampire and a girl who might be part fairy as ‘realistic’. What I mean is, the way Sookie and Bill deal with one another, the trials they face and the problems that occur strikes me as not only realistic, but mature.

These are two individuals who care very deeply for one another. And unlike some of the other manifestations of such a relationship that are out there, these two not only go to great lengths in an attempt to secure each others’ happiness, they also communicate their feelings to one another to the best of their ability. Sometimes the words come out all wrong, and sometimes Bill loses his mind from starvation and nearly kills Sookie, but this leads me to the thing that really underscores the power of this relationship.

They want to work together to make the relationship a lasting one, because they love each other that much. Even when Sookie is so mad at Bill she could spit nails, to the point of pushing him away, it’s clear she still feels every bit as intensely now as she did when she first met him. And Bill would step aside to let Sookie be with someone who could give her children and not drag her into the blood-drenched world of his kind, because he loves her deeply and cares more about her happiness than just about anything else. It’s a nuanced and well-developed relationship that continues to be realistic in its portrayal of those in the real world, rather than becoming a parody or worse, some form of moralizing. I’m looking at you, Ms. Meyer.

Positive, Deep Characters

Courtesy HBO

Let’s face it. “God hates fangs” is one letter away from being a very real and very disturbing messages some churches love to propagate. True Blood is something of an Aesop (albeit a broken one) for many minorities that are discriminated against. A lot of fiction out there prefers to play this discrimination or stereotype for laughs rather than give us a positive view of what these people are really like. For example, while there is some good stuff in The Birdcage, for the most part it’s a madcap comedy. True Blood went in a different direction than comedic representation from the very first episode, with Lafayette.

In the Southern Vampire Diaries, Lafayette’s something of a minor character. In the television series, he’s come to play a pretty important role in the goings-on. He’s unashamed of who he is, unafraid to put a few extra touches on himself to look gorgeous and definitely willing to throw punches at folk who have a problem with him being who he is. Now, the fact that he’s a drug dealer and occasionally puts on webcam shows of himself aren’t terribly positive aspects of the character, but he’s made it clear that he cares more about the people in his life – his cousin Tara, Sookie, his mother, etc – than any cash he might make. He’s a pretty stand-up guy, when you get right down to it, and he’s always around to talk sense into folk when they’re being dumb.

Most of the characters show this sort of depth, but… not all of them are positive.

Compelling Villains

Courtesy HBO

With the likes of Eric and Russell Edgington running around, it’s clear that True Blood isn’t interested in making their villains one-dimensional cackling characters in the mold of Snidely Whiplash. As the show progresses, the raising of the stakes comes with more interesting and difficult to predict antagonists. Neither of the affecting forces in the second season, Maryann or the Fellowship of the Sun, can really hold a candle to Russell Edgington. What will it mean, I wonder, if Eric actually manages to take Russell down? Will that make Eric, by default, the biggest vampire bad on the block?

It’s not even clear if Eric is a villain, per se. While he was clearly started as something of an antagonist towards Bill and Sookie’s idea of a quiet life together, he’s shifted into more of a gray area. He’s a bastard, sure, and manipulates people around him without much thought outside of himself most of the time. But he does care about things – Godric, Pam, avenging his mortal family who’ve been dead over a thousand years – and more than once shows that under the quiet, confident smirks and deadpan remarks is a character every bit as deep and complex as the protagonists. Whichever side of the fence Eric ends up on, be it that of our heroes or that of himself first and foremost, I’m definitely a fan.


Those are just a few reasons True Blood works as a tale with vampires in, and why people like me are tuning in every week. Of course, having vampires that look like this doesn’t hurt, either:

Courtesy HBO

Unfortunately I won’t be able to see tonight’s episode until around Wednesday. Hopefully I can avoid spoilers, but I am dying to know what happens after Mr. Edgington’s little telecast.

Being Critical

The Thinker

When I cross-posted yesterday’s review on the Escapist, a couple of people pointed out that the card game in that abyssmal movie was grossly misrepresented. Fair enough. Despite the fact that breaking the flow of the game to explain what a card is and does is actually something that happens all the time in actual collectible card games, I will concede I was perhaps a bit too harsh when I referred to the card game of Yu-Gi-Oh! as brain damaged.

I’ve played a few CCGs in my day. Magic: the Gathering, NetRunner, Vampire the Masquerade (remember when it was called Jyhad?), World of Warcraft, and even Dragonball Z. I know how these things work. It’s really, really difficult to make it interesting to someone viewing it from the outside with no interest in the game, and since Yu-Gi-Oh! never got my attention as a game, it sure wasn’t doing itself any favors in movie form.

However, that’s a subjective point of view. And some of the folks who have, with probably somewhat good intentions, brought up the merits of the game, are also viewing the work subjectively. Sometimes, if one remains in a subjective point of view, things like tentative references to other works, flimsy dialogue or plot contrivance can get past the radar since the subject is enamored with what’s been depicted in the work.

My goal in yesterday’s post, and in pretty much every IT CAME FROM NETFLIX! feature, is to do my utmost to remain objective. For the most part, there are things in a work that are going to make it good or bad for people as individuals. My mother isn’t a fan of gratuitous violence or excessive use of the F-bomb. So a movie like Pulp Fiction isn’t something she’s going to watch. However, that film does have objective merits that a good film should have: interesting characters, well-written dialogue, a good soundtrack and thoughtful direction. I and other critics might declare it “good”, but that doesn’t mean everyone’s going to see it. Car magazines might say an Aston Martin is a good car, but I’m not going to buy one. Mostly because I can’t afford it.

On the other hand, Avatar has, as objective merits, technical brilliance, a unique aesthetic, sweeping battle sequences and a decent performance here and there. However, it has a story that is at some times simplistic and others clearly drawing from other sources, as well as supporting characters that are somewhat shallow one-dimensional straw men for corporate greed, indigenous antagonism or American belligerence. From a subjective point of view, it’s difficult for me to forgive the story flaws and character problems because I’ve been working very hard to avoid those very things in my own works. Someone who isn’t neck deep in writing speculative fiction might be able to overlook those difficulties and judge the film as good based on its visuals and the composition of its action. And, really, I can’t say I’d fault anyone for that.

Being critical and attempting to see these things from an objective point of view is as much an exercise for my own work as it is inspiration from Confused Matthew or MovieBob. If I can take a step back from my work as a writer, view the objective merits of that work and make the changes necessary to correct any flaws I see, the work will be better for it. The catch is not to overlook flaws that exist just because I can’t bear to pull the trigger or see flaws where there are none because, let’s face it, we are all our own worst critics.

And if I keep editing instead of writing, this stuff I’ve written will never see the light of day.

Um… I don’t get it.

Inception Poster, courtesy Screen Junkies

Brace yourselves.

There’s something I don’t get regarding Inception.

I was able to follow the plot. I understood the characters and their motivations (if most of them are indeed real, which is a matter of some debate). I even followed the logic and rules of dreams as explained within the movie.

I don’t get why people think it’s so damn confusing.

According to Entertainment Weekly, Christopher Nolan’s films are confusing. I think that’s the wrong word to use. I’d be tempted to call them complex, instead. I think the confusion some people are experiencing is due to Inception being an entirely different animal than a lot of the stuff that ends up in cinemas. There’s a big difference between a movie like Inception and something like Revenge of the Fallen. Let me see if I can illustrate.

The basis for pretty much any of the Transformers boils down to “Dude! Remember that really good cartoon from the 80s with all of those toys that made boatloads of cash? Let’s do that, only live-action! And 3-D!!” Other than that, there isn’t a whole of thought involved. Most of the lean tissue burned to bring you the adventures of Shia LeBouf and Megan Fox is in rendering the Transformers themselves, rather than giving them something interesting to do or even noticing that most of the cartoons that I grew up with had little to nothing to do with the humans. It was all about the giant robots beating each other up. While you do have that in RotF, it’s shot so poorly with such loud sound effects and obnoxious humans as window dressing, turning what could have been epic throwdowns into a muddled mess. A little thought would have gone a long way.

Inception is, to paraphrase MovieBob, the notion of Freddy Krueger being James Bond. Considering dreams, and dreams within dreams to boot, are the basis for the film’s action and plot, a lot of thought is put into their construction, the characters’ interaction with them as an environment, rules for getting into and out of various dream states and myriad ways in which things can go horribly, horribly wrong. On top of this already complex construction, we have the character of Cobb, his motivations and all of his baggage. It’s all carefully woven together, and the end result is shot and cut in a way that’s never confusing in and of itself. You don’t need trick photography and glitzy CGI when the story, characters and themes are this deep and thought-provoking.

See the difference? Transformers is pretty mindless entertainment, as airy and essentially empty as the popcorn the audience is shoving into their mouths. Now, I don’t mind switching my brain off from time to time. I think it’s necessary, as the damn thing tends to overheat. But I have ways of finding mindless entertainment on the cheap. I have the Internet, after all. Hell, a lot of World of Warcraft is pretty mindless.

But WoW costs me $15 US a month. A movie costs me around that per show, once pop and snacks are factored in. When I go out of my way to leave my cave, making sure I don’t stink and possibly getting shoved into a tiny seat next to somebody twice my size, I want to get my money’s worth. I want a good story, relatable characters, maybe an underlying theme or two and the notion that the movie’s about something other than special effects and sex appeal. I don’t mind special effects and sex appeal, but again, I have the Internet.

The more of those things I see in a movie at the cinema – story, characters, themes, etc – the more I enjoy myself, the more I feel I got my money’s worth and I might even feel inclined to spend money again to repeat the experience or get more out of it. I like being challenged to think while I’m being entertained. Challenging movies are complex ones.

I liked Revenge of the Fallen about as much as some of the shorts I see on the Internet, through YouTube or what have you. It was amusing and kind of entertaining but I’m in no hurry to watch it again. Watching Inception, on the other hand, was an experience I deeply and thoroughly enjoyed, not just because of the cool gun fights and attractive stars and incredible special effects, but also because it made me think. It didn’t handwave my attempts to understand its philosophical or psychological basis, like the Matrix movies or Waking Life does. It didn’t try to shove my cognitive functions into a locker after taking its lunch money, like Revenge of the Fallen or Jumper did. It wants me to figure it out. It’s written as a labyrinthine puzzle with all of the pieces present but disconnected. It’s up to us to solve it.

I guess most movie-goers, especially the kind of folks who frequent College Humor for a daily guffaw, can’t be bothered to solve it. They just want their entertainment. They want to be pandered to by the likes of Michael Bay and Bungie. I don’t get the mentality, though. I don’t understand an unwillingness to be challenged. I can’t comprehend reluctance, or even outright refusal, to step outside of the expectations of mediocrity to experience something new and interesting, even if it’s complex. Is the mundane really that comfortable? Is the thought-provoking really that frightening? Is this what’s wrong with America?

I’m going to stop this line of thought before I verge into that forbidden zone of political posturing. Suffice it to say that I don’t get it. I don’t get the jokes. I don’t get the criticism. I don’t get the confusion.

I just don’t get it.

Maybe I’m just not stupid enough.

Counter-Strike:Source vs. Team Fortress 2

Courtesy Valve
Courtesy Valve

I was given a guest pass for Counter-Strike: Source during the Steam sale. I was curious to check it out. I haven’t played Counter-Strike since my college days, and since then I’ve discovered the likes of Team Fortress 2 and the Left 4 Dead games to get my co-operative shooting action on. With TF2 being the closest cousin to CS:S in terms of gameplay, the comparison seems inevitable, so let’s toss these two in my blood-soaked cage and see what happens.

Premise

Counter-Strike:Source sells itself as a quite sober affair. Terrorists plant bombs in locations, and the Counter-Terrorists (CTs) work to prevent said bombs from going off. That’s pretty much it. It allows the game to become something of a shooty sandbox, filled with actual sand (on some maps). This simplicity isn’t necessarily a bad thing, but it does make things feel a tad big generic.

Team Fortress 2 is the ongoing struggle between two rival companies over a few scraps of land. Instead of the rather serious tone CS:S strives for, however, TF2 is much more interested in the fun factor. While a rather interesting and somewhat elaborate back-story continues to emerge for both the overall premise and each member of the team, none of it seems involved so much with taking itself seriously as it is with being awesome.

CS:S 0, TF2 1

Cast of Characters

Courtesy Valve

CS:S‘s characters are a bit like its premise. You have Terrorists and CTs. Other than some aesthetic differences between, say, the SEAL team and SAS, the characters are completely interchangeable. The only way to really differentiate yourself is to constantly buy a particular set of weapons & equipment that suit your style of play. There really isn’t much more to say about it.

TF2 has a cast of characters that each have a unique look, voice and style of play. While there’s no appreciable difference between playing a Terrorist or a CT in that other game, you cannot play the Heavy and then switch to the Scout or Spy expecting to play the exact same way. You don’t have to know anything about guns to find a class that works for you. Again, there’s very little getting between you and just having fun with the game.

CS:S 0, TF2 2

Look & Feel

Courtesy Valve

Counter-Strike: Source looks good. The different gun models are pretty accurate, the maps feel realistic and the frenetic pace of the game puts one in the mindset of a tense situation with a clear objective, be it planting the bomb or preventing the explosion. It also, unfortunately, veers towards the same realism as Call of Duty or Battlefield meaning that as accurate as the maps might be in simulating a desert town or an old Aztec ruin, for the most part things are not going to be looking very bright or fresh, but rather somewhat dirty and used.

As I mentioned previously, the look & feel of Team Fortress 2 is somewhere between The Incredibles and Sam Peckinpah. Brightly colored animated characters who gleefully blow each other to bloody smithereens. The maps are still a bit drab, at least the default ones from Valve appear that way, but that’s because most of the land being fought over is located in a desert. Still, I hope I’m not alone that the generic CS:S calls of “All right, let’s move out.” or “The bomb has been planted” are not quite as entertaining as “CRY SOME MORE!”, “You got blood on my suit”, “Stand on the freakin’ point, dumbass!”,”Wave g’bye t’ yer head, wanker!” or “SPY SAPPIN’ MAH SENTRY!”

CS:S 0, TF2 3

Customization

Courtesy Valve

There’s a surprising amount that one can do with Counter-Strike: Source, given that it’s somewhat bare-bones. One of the servers I played on used a mod to give players races, powers and items inspired by Warcraft. Yes, people can be Night Elves, Forsaken and even named characters like Thrall and Archimonde when playing this mod. It’s interesting and I have to appreciate it from a programming standpoint, but I couldn’t shake the feeling it was an effort to make CS:S more interesting.

TF2 lets you make custom maps, and I’ve seen some interesting modifications to class items, some of which have made it into the live version of the game – the Pain Train melee weapon, for example. However, you’re not as likely to see these mods as you are those created by people playing CS:S, so while the CTs get the point, it feels to me like it wouldn’t be necessary for such extensive changes to be made to CS:S by the community if the game had more to it.

CS:S 1, TF2 3

Community

Courtesy Valve & Scout's Mom

Counter-Strike:Source players are aggressive. I don’t just mean in play styles, either. They’re so focused on blasting the opposing team with either their simulated firearms or another homophobic epithet that they won’t answer simple questions, like where one could find information on key binds. It’s tough being a new player, too, because the first clean kill you make is sure to be met with curses and accusations of hacking the game. At least, that was my experience.

In comparison, Team Fortress 2 players seem more interested in helping one another in having a good time. Now, maybe it’s because I play on the Escapist servers more than most others, but most of the epithets that come my way are in the form of a backhanded compliment. A frustrated vocalization is far more likely to be met with a sadistic, good-hearted giggle than the accusation that you like it rough from men with hairy bums. And when you get your revenge, you’ll probably be complimented on it. You’ll have the occasional immature mike-spammer, but on PC servers at least, they won’t last long.

CS:S 1, TF2 4

So that’s how it plays out in this cage, folks. The CTs get their butts handed to them by the gleeful mercenaries of RED and BLU. To me, Team Fortress 2 is a lot more fun, challenging and rewarding than Counter-Strike ever was, and when my guest pass for CS:S expires I will not be all that interested in playing just about any other co-operative shooter than…

…Wait, what’s this Killing Floor game my Escapist chums keep talking about?

Looks like we’ll need to spray down the cage sooner than I thought…

Does That Banner Yet Wave?

Courtesy Betsy Ross

One of the reasons I love living near Philadelphia is the history. So much happened in that little port town in a short period of time before New York grew to gargantuan proportions and Washington, DC became the capital city. The reason Americans have a holiday to celebrate on this date, in fact the reason why Americans have a country, was a document signed in Philadelphia 234 years ago this year.

It was signed because a few colonial land-owners didn’t want to pay taxes to the British crown anymore.

…Okay, all right, there’s more to it than that. The English had demonstrated that America was something of an annoying step-child, a sore spot with the French and while its resources were valuable to the Empire, the populace was somewhat irritating. After the French were beaten in the North American front of the Seven Years’ War (commonly known as the ‘French and Indian War’ in America, because who cares what the rest of the world calls something), England turned their attention to some of things America had been doing that the English didn’t like. Americans were skirting mercantile procedures to bolster their own profits, pushing westward despite angering the native tribes and were training militia rather than relying on troops from England. King George’s response was first to ask the colonies to help with the cost of the war fought on their soil (this was the ‘no taxation without representation’ thing), and then to tax the colonies directly, quarter troops in colonial homes and refuse to recognize colonial commissions of officers, basically sending the message that American soldiers were not as good as English ones.

So everybody was a little pissed off all around.

Thomas Paine wrote Common Sense, which became a best-selling book on American shores with over 500,000 copies in circulation during the first year – impressive even by today’s standards. It glossed over the philosophies of Rosseau and Locke that were informing the impulses of American movers and shakers towards libertarian thinking, and presented the argument for independence to common American folk, by way of making the argument something of a sermon. So the American rhetoric began as it meant to go on, it seems.

Back in those days, freedom for Americans means freedom from foreign rule. Nowadays, freedom for most Americans seems to mean freedom to do whatever the hell we want to whomever the hell we want, whenever the hell we want. That sounds less like a democracy and more like anarchy to me, or at the very least an autocracy. Most Americans need someone to tell them what to be afraid of and who to hate today, at least. But there I go again, breaking the promise I made that I wouldn’t let this blog get political.

What bothers me is that this holiday, the day on which Americans celebrate the fact that they did win freedom from foreign rule, has been ‘dumbed down’ in a sense, at least for me. In fact American nationalism feels kind of dumb of late. Instead of singing “The Star-Spangled Banner,” which is in fact our national anthem, a lot of sporting events and whatnot begin with “God Bless America.” The implication of that, for me, is that God should bless America and no place else. I hate to break it to these so-called patriots, but there are nations in the world other than America that need help from the Divine a lot more than we do. The worst thing we have to worry about is running out of oil or pissing off another country so much that they nuke us. Other countries have people wondering what the hell they’re going to feed their kids today.

Americans have that problem, too, but ask the average conservative Republican if they care.

I’m going to veer into political territory one more time, if you’ll indulge me. To me, being an American means having freedom of thought and expression. We are forgers of our own destinies as individuals, and any force that seeks to oppress, dumb down or stifle our ability to think and decide for ourselves should be our enemy, not necessary a foreign power with a different point of view. We should be worrying about how to feed and educate our children, honor and care for our elderly, employ those in need of a job and play a positive role in the future of our planet.

Instead we are told to buy what we can, even if we can’t afford it, that we should be afraid to go anywhere outside of America and any notion of health care or fuel supplies that cost less (if indeed they cost anything) are decidedly un-American. All “good” Americans should bow down to the Free Market the way they bow down to the blond-haired gun-toting Jaysus that loves little fetuses and hates anybody who worships anything other than Himself, meaning Jaysus is “a good American.”

I hope I don’t need to go into detail as to why that line of thinking is bullshit.

Francis Scott Key asks the question “Oh, say does that star-spangled banner yet wave o’er the land of the free and the home of the brave?”

To me, it does, and it will. As long as people continue to think freely, and bravely rail against notions that seek to stupefy, retard or oppress the rights of the individual, it’ll wave proudly. This is why I call today ‘Independence Day’, not ‘the 4th of July’. This is why I pay as little attention to fanatical rhetoric from either side of the political debate as possible – in the case of the right, I follow some folks on Twitter just to know what the enemy is thinking. I want to engage my brain when I salute my flag, you see. I don’t want to do it just because some bloated blowhard tells me I should. I want to be proud of this country and, in a way, I am.

I’m proud of the fact I can bang out all of these words without fear of getting dragged away in an unmarked van to be shot behind the chemical shed. I’m proud that the people with whom I disagree can be marginalized or even ignored because nobody in this country has absolute power. I’m proud that in spite of all of the free-floating negativity, people are still out there trying to do good, making an effort to improve the world around them instead of just fattening their own pocketbooks and being kind to one another – and some of those people happen to be Americans, thank God.

Yes, Americans are arrogant. Yes, we throw our weight around a bit more than we should. And yes, we have a lot of humble pie to eat from the last decade or so of shenanigans we’ve perpetuated in the name of defending ourselves.

But America is still a country worth defending, and even if in the future the word ‘expatriate’ might follow my nationality, I’m proud to be an American.

Happy Independence Day, everyone.

Older posts Newer posts

© 2024 Blue Ink Alchemy

Theme by Anders NorenUp ↑