Meeting from hell yesterday.
Actually that's not true. But only in so far as it wasn't a meeting but a 'brainstorming session'.
The thing I found the most frustrating was that we got to a stage where I thought we were on the cusp of making a selection. We needed to pick an idea to pursue and I thought we'd done some reasonable drilling down to get to some of those specific things.
However, at the point we were making that decision there suddenly appeared to be a huge leap backwards and instead of being low level we were suddenly very high-level and it seemed like nothing had been decided.
Worse, something totally counter-intuitive happened. We each got to vote and even though one option clearly won, the people who supported the one that lost stuck their heels in and we ended up going for that one!
Even worse than that, it's a shit idea that I quite frankly don't understand. Indeed, no-one I'm working with understands and it's us that have got to write the goddamn bid!
Awful.
Towards the end I was just focusing on one thing: I'm on holiday for two weeks from Monday.
Yes, that's right, two whole weeks off.
Plus, it's a proper holiday to foreign parts. I'm not sure if I've mentioned this before properly, but me and the family are going to see the Monaco Grand Prix.
That part of the holiday lasts a week so I've a few days before hand to get my life sorted out and pack and stuff and then a few days after to chill out.
I'm really looking forward to it.
Doubt I'll be bogging during that period, so see you in two weeks.
Friday, 15 May 2009
Thursday, 14 May 2009
24: redemption
And in a separate move of great surprisingness I watched a second film this weekend too!
The film in question was 24: Redemption.
It's intended as a bridge between seasons 6 and 7 of 24. I've obviously not seen season 7 yet, as it's only on satellite, but it comes out on DVD fairly soon.
Season 6 was a disappointing season, overall. Part of the problem 24 has is that it's built up a lot of baggage.
In the first season clearly everything and everyone was new. In the second season many of the characters returned; however one thing they did was to throw in some very neat twists involving those existing characters. The best and clearest of these involved a character called Nina who, in essence, turned out to be a bad guy where we all thought she was a good guy.
Now while that was a brilliant twist it ended up setting something of a tone for the show. Firstly, it started a big trend of treacherous women. Basically, if there's a woman on the show (and especially if she's involved with Jack Bauer) then she's almost certainly hiding something or is a full-on dirty terrorist.
Now that's okay, since a big part of 24 has always been the paranoia and not knowing who you can trust, but it does come across as a bit cynical at times.
The second tone it set was that any recurring character at some point will come under suspicion. Again, this goes along with the whole paranoia thing, but it does mean they set they end up doubling up on themselves a lot. Oh - he's a traitor now too. Is everyone a damn traitor?
It also created that expectation of recurring characters. In a way, 24 is better when it's dealing with new characters. It's one thing to find out that someone you've only just met is actually a traitor (or conversely turns out to be an undercover agent or something), it becomes cliché that everyone you knew and liked last season turns out to be a spy in this season.
The last tonal element that the Nina plotline set was a little more subtle. In season 1 it was pretty much the case that Jack was just doing what he did because he had too.
If he tortured some guy it was because he had to in order to get the Intel he needed (we'll leave the issue of torture being flawed and ineffective aside). However, because Nina was such a personal betrayal it created a vendetta.
Now if and when Jack pursued Nina and, indeed, got his hands on her, any nasty action he would take like torturing her or killing her was clearly now something eh wanted to do for personal reasons. It was about revenge and also hinted that he enjoyed torturing some people, in certain circumstances. He didn't just want to bring her to justice, he wanted to hurt her.
And that also strayed into the area of suggesting Jack might enjoy being a sadist. In other words, because his motives were muddied for Nina, they were generally muddied too.
But what about 24: Redemption?
Well, the basic idea is it's set in Africa. Jack is on the run from being called to justice in the US and nobody he encounters there is a recurring character.
Indeed, even in the stuff set in the States there's a sweep and clear tone to it - the old president is on the way out and a new one coming in. Plus there's a brand new bad guy.
It even looks like the bad guy in question is a proper, higher up bad guy. In previous seasons of 24 one of my frustrations is that Jack never really gets to grips with the proper bad guys. There's often a secret cabal of bad guys in the background who are pulling the strings, and Jack never even gets to know about them, let alone takes the fight to them.
The whole torture issue is somewhat addressed too. The character played by Robert Carlisle is a compatriot of Jack's and basically tortured to death someone who didn't actually know anything and therefore gave false info that resulted in a mission going pear-shaped.
This is good, but the problem in a sense is that although Jack has kind of tortured the wrong people on some occasions, it's never been that clear cut in the same way. It's almost saying Jack is 'better' than Carlisle's character, so it's okay for him to torture people.
They have ended up relying on physical torture a little too much for me in 24. I can see the problem - the show is set over 24 hours. That's not enough time to have him using proper interrogation techniques, which might take days. They also want to keep the show generally fast paced - dashing here and there, trying to capture/stop the terrorists rather than focusing on getting information out of people who have already been captured.
But it gets a little repetitive. I think they could do more in terms of psychological 'torture'. It's like there was one where killed a terrorist's family in front of him until he talked. I mean it was revealed they faked it, but still it's more interesting than just punching someone in the face or stabbing them or whatever.
Anyway, overall 24: Redemption is quite good. It's certainly nice to see some fresh places and people and I hope it continues into the 7th season.
The film in question was 24: Redemption.
It's intended as a bridge between seasons 6 and 7 of 24. I've obviously not seen season 7 yet, as it's only on satellite, but it comes out on DVD fairly soon.
Season 6 was a disappointing season, overall. Part of the problem 24 has is that it's built up a lot of baggage.
In the first season clearly everything and everyone was new. In the second season many of the characters returned; however one thing they did was to throw in some very neat twists involving those existing characters. The best and clearest of these involved a character called Nina who, in essence, turned out to be a bad guy where we all thought she was a good guy.
Now while that was a brilliant twist it ended up setting something of a tone for the show. Firstly, it started a big trend of treacherous women. Basically, if there's a woman on the show (and especially if she's involved with Jack Bauer) then she's almost certainly hiding something or is a full-on dirty terrorist.
Now that's okay, since a big part of 24 has always been the paranoia and not knowing who you can trust, but it does come across as a bit cynical at times.
The second tone it set was that any recurring character at some point will come under suspicion. Again, this goes along with the whole paranoia thing, but it does mean they set they end up doubling up on themselves a lot. Oh - he's a traitor now too. Is everyone a damn traitor?
It also created that expectation of recurring characters. In a way, 24 is better when it's dealing with new characters. It's one thing to find out that someone you've only just met is actually a traitor (or conversely turns out to be an undercover agent or something), it becomes cliché that everyone you knew and liked last season turns out to be a spy in this season.
The last tonal element that the Nina plotline set was a little more subtle. In season 1 it was pretty much the case that Jack was just doing what he did because he had too.
If he tortured some guy it was because he had to in order to get the Intel he needed (we'll leave the issue of torture being flawed and ineffective aside). However, because Nina was such a personal betrayal it created a vendetta.
Now if and when Jack pursued Nina and, indeed, got his hands on her, any nasty action he would take like torturing her or killing her was clearly now something eh wanted to do for personal reasons. It was about revenge and also hinted that he enjoyed torturing some people, in certain circumstances. He didn't just want to bring her to justice, he wanted to hurt her.
And that also strayed into the area of suggesting Jack might enjoy being a sadist. In other words, because his motives were muddied for Nina, they were generally muddied too.
But what about 24: Redemption?
Well, the basic idea is it's set in Africa. Jack is on the run from being called to justice in the US and nobody he encounters there is a recurring character.
Indeed, even in the stuff set in the States there's a sweep and clear tone to it - the old president is on the way out and a new one coming in. Plus there's a brand new bad guy.
It even looks like the bad guy in question is a proper, higher up bad guy. In previous seasons of 24 one of my frustrations is that Jack never really gets to grips with the proper bad guys. There's often a secret cabal of bad guys in the background who are pulling the strings, and Jack never even gets to know about them, let alone takes the fight to them.
The whole torture issue is somewhat addressed too. The character played by Robert Carlisle is a compatriot of Jack's and basically tortured to death someone who didn't actually know anything and therefore gave false info that resulted in a mission going pear-shaped.
This is good, but the problem in a sense is that although Jack has kind of tortured the wrong people on some occasions, it's never been that clear cut in the same way. It's almost saying Jack is 'better' than Carlisle's character, so it's okay for him to torture people.
They have ended up relying on physical torture a little too much for me in 24. I can see the problem - the show is set over 24 hours. That's not enough time to have him using proper interrogation techniques, which might take days. They also want to keep the show generally fast paced - dashing here and there, trying to capture/stop the terrorists rather than focusing on getting information out of people who have already been captured.
But it gets a little repetitive. I think they could do more in terms of psychological 'torture'. It's like there was one where killed a terrorist's family in front of him until he talked. I mean it was revealed they faked it, but still it's more interesting than just punching someone in the face or stabbing them or whatever.
Anyway, overall 24: Redemption is quite good. It's certainly nice to see some fresh places and people and I hope it continues into the 7th season.
Wednesday, 13 May 2009
hitman
The weekend rental was hitman.
It's based on a popular game series, though I've never personally played any of the games - indeed I know very little about the games as it goes.
Unfortunately, it did nothing to go against the general rule that film adaptations of games are poor.
The reasons for this were rather many and varied.
Hitman - as the name implies - features a hitman as its central character. The hitman in question, we're told, is the product of a secret organisation that takes lost and missing children and turns them into hired killers.
There's a hint that the organisation in question is of some religious nature, but we don't really find out anything about it, and this is one of the problems. Not so much that they don't tell us anything about the organisation, but it's more to do with how it relates to our main character.
See, the problem is I didn't really care about him.
In a game, empathy with the main character is sort of irrelevant, because you play the main character. In a film we need stuff to relate too. Or, of course, the opposite - if we're not supposed to like them we need to know why.
Now they sort of try to do that using a montage sequence over the credits. But, to be frank, it's piss poor. It's stylistically done and what elements of brutality there are are kinda hidden or have less impact because of it.
So it's failing from the get-go - why care about this kid and the grown up version? I've not enough to go on.
But there are also more fundamental problems. Naturally, the film is about a particular assassination. However, it's a little confusing how and what is going on. It also seems riddled with plot-holes and co-incidences.
There's one bit where another hitman from the organisation shows up and seems to try to shoot our guy. But our guy seems totally un-phased by this and instead of immediately assuming some sort of double-cross or problem, like a normal person would, it's only later that he seems to cotton on, and then apparently only because he's directly told he's in trouble. (Told by someone we've never met before and find out nothing about, btw - maybe if you've played the games it's a little bonus thing, but for us normal people it's just totally random.)
But the weird thing is that the plot, even though it's a little confusing, is also very generic. It's difficult to explain - it's like initially the filmmakers assume you know what's going on because they're re-using other people's plot devices, so they don't really explain. Instead, stuff just happens, but because you've not be told you get a bit confused.
Then, the filmmakers think to themselves "hmm, what if they didn't get that?" so they add in some explanatory dialogue after the fact. You hear that dialogue and realise what's going on. But you also realise that you've seen it before.
I'm sure that makes no real sense, but I know what I mean.
Another aspect of well-worn-ness is in the action. It really feels like it slipped out of the 1980s. Now that's okay, but a hallmark of 1980s action films is the one-line quip. This quip clues you in that they know it's all a bit daft too.
But because our hitman is basically a silent slab of muscle there are virtually no quips, so it just comes across as tastelessly ultra-violent.
It's quite poor.
Oh, and while the idea of a hitman wandering about with a barcode tatood on his totally bald head might seem like a cool conceit in the game it comes across as just plain daft in the film. i mean, if you're a hitman you don't want to be standign out like a soar thumb, right? Well a baldy with a barcode does stand out like a soar thumb. So much so that you wonder why members of the public aren't pointing and staring.
Also, no extras at all.
It's based on a popular game series, though I've never personally played any of the games - indeed I know very little about the games as it goes.
Unfortunately, it did nothing to go against the general rule that film adaptations of games are poor.
The reasons for this were rather many and varied.
Hitman - as the name implies - features a hitman as its central character. The hitman in question, we're told, is the product of a secret organisation that takes lost and missing children and turns them into hired killers.
There's a hint that the organisation in question is of some religious nature, but we don't really find out anything about it, and this is one of the problems. Not so much that they don't tell us anything about the organisation, but it's more to do with how it relates to our main character.
See, the problem is I didn't really care about him.
In a game, empathy with the main character is sort of irrelevant, because you play the main character. In a film we need stuff to relate too. Or, of course, the opposite - if we're not supposed to like them we need to know why.
Now they sort of try to do that using a montage sequence over the credits. But, to be frank, it's piss poor. It's stylistically done and what elements of brutality there are are kinda hidden or have less impact because of it.
So it's failing from the get-go - why care about this kid and the grown up version? I've not enough to go on.
But there are also more fundamental problems. Naturally, the film is about a particular assassination. However, it's a little confusing how and what is going on. It also seems riddled with plot-holes and co-incidences.
There's one bit where another hitman from the organisation shows up and seems to try to shoot our guy. But our guy seems totally un-phased by this and instead of immediately assuming some sort of double-cross or problem, like a normal person would, it's only later that he seems to cotton on, and then apparently only because he's directly told he's in trouble. (Told by someone we've never met before and find out nothing about, btw - maybe if you've played the games it's a little bonus thing, but for us normal people it's just totally random.)
But the weird thing is that the plot, even though it's a little confusing, is also very generic. It's difficult to explain - it's like initially the filmmakers assume you know what's going on because they're re-using other people's plot devices, so they don't really explain. Instead, stuff just happens, but because you've not be told you get a bit confused.
Then, the filmmakers think to themselves "hmm, what if they didn't get that?" so they add in some explanatory dialogue after the fact. You hear that dialogue and realise what's going on. But you also realise that you've seen it before.
I'm sure that makes no real sense, but I know what I mean.
Another aspect of well-worn-ness is in the action. It really feels like it slipped out of the 1980s. Now that's okay, but a hallmark of 1980s action films is the one-line quip. This quip clues you in that they know it's all a bit daft too.
But because our hitman is basically a silent slab of muscle there are virtually no quips, so it just comes across as tastelessly ultra-violent.
It's quite poor.
Oh, and while the idea of a hitman wandering about with a barcode tatood on his totally bald head might seem like a cool conceit in the game it comes across as just plain daft in the film. i mean, if you're a hitman you don't want to be standign out like a soar thumb, right? Well a baldy with a barcode does stand out like a soar thumb. So much so that you wonder why members of the public aren't pointing and staring.
Also, no extras at all.
Tuesday, 12 May 2009
shock horror
In what I can only really describe as a shocking move of horror (or a horribly shocking move I think it's meant to be) I actually watched some anime on DVD this weekend!
Freedom is basically I gigantic advert for pot noodle (Well, not actually pot noodle the company, but another brand with the same basic idea - freeze-dried noodles in sauce you add boiling water too. They're very popular in Japan and kinda represent the default "instant food".). I'm pretty sure it uses cell-shaded animation, which is a type of computer animation.
Initially, it's slightly freaky to watch if I'm honest. The same technique was used in the Appleseed movies, but there they made it more obviously CG style. Here it still looks very anime, but has that computer animation vibe to it too. It works best with action and fast moving stuff, which there's plenty of here.
Unfortunately, however, I couldn't watch it all. Freedom was actually produced in high-def, but released on the HD-DVD format. It was right around the time this was coming out that HD-DVD bit the dust, and unfortunately the final, 7th, episode was never released on HD-DVD (it's actually on a dual format - DVD & HD-DVD, which is how I can watch it). They are putting out a complete DVD version sometime later in the year, though.
Oh and I didn't say - it's pretty good. It certainly looks nice, with high production values, and the story is enjoyable enough, if a little far-fetched. You do kinda end up with a hankering for pot noodles, though, which can't be a good thing.
Welcome to the NHK okay, so here the shock and horror kinda falls down a bit, because - truth be told - I only watched 1 episode. I liked it, but it's not really much to go on is it, so I'll kinda have to get back to you on this.
But I've also been reading lots of manga!
Kurohime I'd never heard of this before a few weeks ago. It popped up as a recommended title on Amazon and what intrigued me to have a look was the artwork - it looked remarkably similar to stuff by Masamune Shirow. Having got the book it was quite interesting - the title character, Kurohime, is drawn in a way very reminiscent of Shirow, but the rest of the artwork doesn't resemble Shirow's stuff at all.
It also gets off to an odd start - the second volume is almost like a 'reboot' (I gather from the notes it changed from one publication to another, hence the restart) of the series. And to be frank the story is not hugely great. I mean it's okay, it's just a little repetitive if I'm honest, although this did improve with the later volumes. The art pretty much saves it, though, even if there is that occasionally weird moment of feeling like Shirow is drawing it.
Kurokami (Black God). Initially I decided I was going to re-read the first volume of this before going ahead and buying any more volumes. Unfortunately I was a little impetuous and also a little mistaken and, figuring there were only 5 or so volumes out I'd actually ordered them all already. Unfortunately I wish I'd done what I said as I'm not hugely impressed. It's a bit like oh my goddess meets bleach with some guff about doppelgangers thrown in as well. I think I may be dropping this an e-baying what I've already got.
Keroro Gunsou (Sergeant Frog) is interesting. I picked it up because I'm a fan of Mine Yoshizaki's artwork - his cute and sexy girls are great. The story is a bit all over the place, if I'm honest. I'm currently undecided whether to continue buying it or not. It's a gigantically long series - something like 17 volumes out already and it's still going strong. I may well purchase a couple more volumes and see what I think of them.
Also not sure if I mentioned but I decided to buy the other volumes of the Full Metal Alchemist. I quite liked the first volume, especially as it wasn't quite what I expected.
Freedom is basically I gigantic advert for pot noodle (Well, not actually pot noodle the company, but another brand with the same basic idea - freeze-dried noodles in sauce you add boiling water too. They're very popular in Japan and kinda represent the default "instant food".). I'm pretty sure it uses cell-shaded animation, which is a type of computer animation.
Initially, it's slightly freaky to watch if I'm honest. The same technique was used in the Appleseed movies, but there they made it more obviously CG style. Here it still looks very anime, but has that computer animation vibe to it too. It works best with action and fast moving stuff, which there's plenty of here.
Unfortunately, however, I couldn't watch it all. Freedom was actually produced in high-def, but released on the HD-DVD format. It was right around the time this was coming out that HD-DVD bit the dust, and unfortunately the final, 7th, episode was never released on HD-DVD (it's actually on a dual format - DVD & HD-DVD, which is how I can watch it). They are putting out a complete DVD version sometime later in the year, though.
Oh and I didn't say - it's pretty good. It certainly looks nice, with high production values, and the story is enjoyable enough, if a little far-fetched. You do kinda end up with a hankering for pot noodles, though, which can't be a good thing.
Welcome to the NHK okay, so here the shock and horror kinda falls down a bit, because - truth be told - I only watched 1 episode. I liked it, but it's not really much to go on is it, so I'll kinda have to get back to you on this.
But I've also been reading lots of manga!
Kurohime I'd never heard of this before a few weeks ago. It popped up as a recommended title on Amazon and what intrigued me to have a look was the artwork - it looked remarkably similar to stuff by Masamune Shirow. Having got the book it was quite interesting - the title character, Kurohime, is drawn in a way very reminiscent of Shirow, but the rest of the artwork doesn't resemble Shirow's stuff at all.
It also gets off to an odd start - the second volume is almost like a 'reboot' (I gather from the notes it changed from one publication to another, hence the restart) of the series. And to be frank the story is not hugely great. I mean it's okay, it's just a little repetitive if I'm honest, although this did improve with the later volumes. The art pretty much saves it, though, even if there is that occasionally weird moment of feeling like Shirow is drawing it.
Kurokami (Black God). Initially I decided I was going to re-read the first volume of this before going ahead and buying any more volumes. Unfortunately I was a little impetuous and also a little mistaken and, figuring there were only 5 or so volumes out I'd actually ordered them all already. Unfortunately I wish I'd done what I said as I'm not hugely impressed. It's a bit like oh my goddess meets bleach with some guff about doppelgangers thrown in as well. I think I may be dropping this an e-baying what I've already got.
Keroro Gunsou (Sergeant Frog) is interesting. I picked it up because I'm a fan of Mine Yoshizaki's artwork - his cute and sexy girls are great. The story is a bit all over the place, if I'm honest. I'm currently undecided whether to continue buying it or not. It's a gigantically long series - something like 17 volumes out already and it's still going strong. I may well purchase a couple more volumes and see what I think of them.
Also not sure if I mentioned but I decided to buy the other volumes of the Full Metal Alchemist. I quite liked the first volume, especially as it wasn't quite what I expected.
Monday, 11 May 2009
more colonization
Bit of a non-weekend, truth be told.
I mean, I wasn't sat around doing nothing, but the stuff I did do was not particularly note-worthy. I'd hoped to summon up some willpower and do a load of scanning, attacking my last pile of "permanently unscanned" magazines. But in the end I was a bit fatigued after the horrible weeks I've been enduring recently, so instead I played a good wodge of Colonization.
It's an interesting game. One of the things about Civilization is that it's very open ended. There are always numerous ways to play and win - not least of all in the various victory conditions, but also different style of gaming. You can be aggressive and conquer your neighbours or work with them. You can spend all you time building up all your cities or you can focus on specialising each city. Or you can build a spaceship and fly off to Alpha Centauri.
However, colonization is much more focused. It's like a mod for civ with a cut down set of victory conditions and restricted rule set. It's not bad for that, it's just it's more limited. For example, in order to win you have to declare independence and beat the king's army. So you have to always plan ahead for that - you can't win in a peaceful way.
It's also in some ways strangely easy, but in others strangely difficult. It's easy because the best way to approach the game is to get lots of money. To get lots of money you need to do lots of trading and to do lots of trading you needs lots of resources. To get them you need to sprawl your settlements like a motheherfucker and build loads of wagon trains. You then only need to focus on having a few "manufacturing centres" in order to turn raw materials into processed goods that sell for much better prices.
But while that plan is pretty easy in theory it becomes a pedants playground of settlement micro-management. It's like it's best to have 1 city that you focus on tool production so you can have it pumping out loads of tools every turn. But in order to build stuff in your other cities (to do the manufacturing, for example) they need tools. That means you have to ship around all these tools, which can be mind-boggling complex given how many settlements the above mentioned plan suggests you need.
The good thing, though, is that I like the whole micr-management pedantry thing - it's why I love Civ - so I'm right in my element.
I mean, I wasn't sat around doing nothing, but the stuff I did do was not particularly note-worthy. I'd hoped to summon up some willpower and do a load of scanning, attacking my last pile of "permanently unscanned" magazines. But in the end I was a bit fatigued after the horrible weeks I've been enduring recently, so instead I played a good wodge of Colonization.
It's an interesting game. One of the things about Civilization is that it's very open ended. There are always numerous ways to play and win - not least of all in the various victory conditions, but also different style of gaming. You can be aggressive and conquer your neighbours or work with them. You can spend all you time building up all your cities or you can focus on specialising each city. Or you can build a spaceship and fly off to Alpha Centauri.
However, colonization is much more focused. It's like a mod for civ with a cut down set of victory conditions and restricted rule set. It's not bad for that, it's just it's more limited. For example, in order to win you have to declare independence and beat the king's army. So you have to always plan ahead for that - you can't win in a peaceful way.
It's also in some ways strangely easy, but in others strangely difficult. It's easy because the best way to approach the game is to get lots of money. To get lots of money you need to do lots of trading and to do lots of trading you needs lots of resources. To get them you need to sprawl your settlements like a motheherfucker and build loads of wagon trains. You then only need to focus on having a few "manufacturing centres" in order to turn raw materials into processed goods that sell for much better prices.
But while that plan is pretty easy in theory it becomes a pedants playground of settlement micro-management. It's like it's best to have 1 city that you focus on tool production so you can have it pumping out loads of tools every turn. But in order to build stuff in your other cities (to do the manufacturing, for example) they need tools. That means you have to ship around all these tools, which can be mind-boggling complex given how many settlements the above mentioned plan suggests you need.
The good thing, though, is that I like the whole micr-management pedantry thing - it's why I love Civ - so I'm right in my element.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)