I took note of a couple quotes during my summer trip to Florida while watching TV:
"[Accused racial instigator] Eddie Dawson was no mastermind. Even by the intellectually forgiving standards of the KKK." -City Confidential
"Erotic films are when you use a feather. Pornographic films are when you use the whole chicken. This woman's been through a lot of chickens." -Nip & Tuck
I oscillate on this a lot lately, but the question became a bit more urgent recently.
A few weeks back I picked up a copy of F-Zero GX. I pretty much had to, because I review games. Of course, as it turned out, GX is one of those games that got pawned off to a third party (Sega) and was pretty much ruined in the translation. Quirks that shouldn't have existed in the physics system, a tacked-on multiplayer that was pointless, cheating AI... just bad game design.
But it got me thinking -- back in college, we played tons and tons of F-Zero X on Josh's N64. Now, of course, N64 units are really cheap compared to their original cost, as would be the game. I could assemble the complete system for $60 with the one game.
Only problem is, I have no desire to pick up any other games for an N64. There are some games I remember fondly, but hey; I have Zelda 64 for the Gamecube now, complete with Master Quest mode. I'll have Conker's Bad Fur Day in an updated version, the way it was meant to be played (before Nintendo censored the heck out of it) when the Xbox version comes out soon enough. Zelda: Majora's Mask I can play on emulator, and it really wasn't that great a game (more annoying than anything else having to re-do the same timeline over and over) to start with.
Which leaves me the solid question... am I missing any other games from the system? Waverace 64 would be kind of fun, but not really necessary. Is it worth $60 just to get my F-Zero on?
Those who know me better, know that I occasionally (well, ok, a lot of the time) wear the good old "Snake's-eye-view of the world" glasses (thank you Johnny Hart for that old reference) and function somewhat as a game and hardware reviewer, nitpicking all those critical things that eventually devolve into "should I buy it or not?" and "But is it fun to play?"
Therefore I was highly amused to find this sitting in the back archives of Dan's Data.
My name's Mike Ahlf... I'm a friend of the No-Lyfe crew, and by variable standards a member given that I've voice acted in some fashion for each of the productions so far. Alex dropped me an invitation to blog here from time to time, so here I am.
I suppose sometime I should put up a list of characters I've played; I'll get back on that once I doublecheck with Adam to figure out their names.
As with my normal blog, there's always more to come, though my posting schedule is always on an "as I feel like it" basis.
The Comic Films Crossover - The Batman Balancing Act
As Adam mentioned below, Warner Brothers has cast a new Batman. Having never seen Bale perform, I haven't much to say about it other than that it looks promising. Michael Ahlf posts his thoughts on the franchise, and as with everything comic book related, I have some quibbles with it:
#1 -- Batman film #2, trying to put in two villains and keep it ultra-edgy. Guys, the Penguin was always remembered as a comedy villain. Catwoman alone is all that movie would have needed.
I actually thought two villains was fine. The problem was that it had three villains. Penguin, Catwoman, and Max Shreck (Christopher Walken). It was also a short movie, which was merciful in the sense that the audience didn't have to endure it any longer. On the other hand, it didn't give any of the villains much air time. I actually think Penguin and Catwoman would have been okay together.
I agree with Michael insofar as Penguin was an odd choice. On the other hand, I really liked the adaptation of the character. My only real qualm was that it was too early and too important in the franchise of the movie (I'd argue that the second movie in a franchise is actually more important than the first) to flesh out a previously unfleshed out villain. I appreciate what the movie did with the character (which spilled over into the comics, for the better), but it wasn't a remarkably wise move.
#2 -- Joel Schumacher. Keep his fruity hands off this next movie, off anything that touches the next movie, off anything remotely connected to the next movie. The last thing the new flick needs is the return of the "Bat-Ass" and "Bat-Nipples" just because some fruit of a director found it tittilating.
Agreed.
#3 -- Casting the star of the month. Keaton was a good Batman. Catwoman wasn't a bad casting choice. Two-Face and Riddler were decently cast. Chris O'Donnel, on the other hand, was a boring as hell Robin who should never be let near the suit again. Alicia Silverstone as Batgirl... ugh. Sorry, Little Miss Baby-Fat BatGirl didn't cut it. Uma Thurman as Poison Ivy, cool. Ahnold as a campy Mr. Freeze... BAD IDEA GUYS.
I actually don't have a problem with O'Donnell (who wasn't the "star of the month" until he won that part). I did have a problem with a Robin who was like 48 years old. Matt Damon was passed over for the part and he would have been a better choice. He was too old, too, but at least he looked younger. Getting someone who actually was younger would probably be too much to ask...
Doctor Freeze was the most horribly cast character in the franchise. I honestly do not know what they were thinking other than "oooh ooooh star money!!" or something to that effect.
The third and fourth movie was when they really started spreading themselves too thin. If you're going to add a Robin, then you definitely don't need two comic book villains. Two-Face was tragically given less attention than he deserves. I mean good heavens, the Animated Series did a better job with the character in 40 minutes. Having Two-Face and Robin introduced in the same movie was a mistake because it lead to that sort of thing (actually, what it lead to was placing Two-Face in Robin's origin, which was a bad idea). I'd rather them have left Two-Face out than do it this poorly.
I commend their casting Jim Carrey for the part, even though he too was the flavor of the month at the time.
The biggest problem was the script. The plot on 3 and 4 completely stunk. Two villains with great stories (Two-Face and Dr. Freeze) were given a 10 second reel explaining their origin to make room for more, more, more. At the final count, there were three heroes (Batman, Robin, and Batgirl) and three villains (Dr. Freeze, Poison Ivy, and Bane... don't even get me started on Bane).
#4 -- Get decent writers and directors. Ones the respect the property. Neither 2,3, or especially 4 gave the Batman franchise any respect. Part of that was Schumacher, part was O'Donnel (who couldn't deliver a joke if you handed it to him preaddressed in an envelope), part was just REALLY BAD WRITING.
There shouldn't have been jokes for O'Donnell to deliver.
I disagree that the second movie "didn't give the franchise any respect"... the redefinition of the Penguin character was, in my opinion, well done. It was a departure, but a thoughtful departure, which I don't consider to be a matter of disrespect. On the other hand, Batman Forever kept Two-Face's backstory, but had no respect.
My general view of the Batman movies was: Batman - Great execution of a good idea. Batman Returns - Flawed execution of a good idea. Batman Forever - Good execution of a flawed idea. Batman & Robin - Flawed execution of a flawed idea.
If any Warner execs read this, reread those last four points. Those are the experiences you had with Batman, that Marvel learned from and brought around in the current slew of Marvel flicks to kick your sorry butts.
Well, in Warner Bros. defense, the Batman mythos is a rather difficult one to translate to film. You're actually balancing a number of things:
1) Good story - Good Batman stories aren't that difficult to write, but it's difficult to do without context and backstory. One of the reasons I love the Batman mythos in comic books is because there is all that history there and when you bring in a well-known character, you don't have to bother explaining who he is. It makes a writer's job a lot easier. 2) Marketable properties - Some of the villains that I believe would translate best to film, such as Scarecrow, no one has ever heard of. Other characters, such as Catwoman and the Riddler, are well known but translate better as anti-hero and soft villain respectively. Putting Catwoman as the sole villain in a movie wouldn't work because she's just not villainous enough. Pitting her with Batman against a Shreck villain is creates the master villain as being someone that no one has heard of or cares about (and is thus entirely unmarketable). The best place to put an unmarketable villain is in the first movie when the hero is being introduced. Saving villains for later movies is a risky move, however, as you may not get more movies with which to use them. 3) Freshness - You need to spice each movie up with something the previous lacked. That's easy to do with an X-Men type of movie where you've got a whole roster of characters to explore, but more difficult for a solo hero. You can't just replace the villain and let things go from there because it gets monotonous. That's where characters like Robin and Batgirl come in (and, if done my way, Catwoman). There's a lot of potential to keep things fresh by adding these things, but there is also the difficulty of cramming in a new hero (or anti-hero) and a new villain or two. Yet bringing in Robin so that he and Batman could face off against Tony Zucco (the run-of-the-mill mobster that killed Dick Grayson's folks in the comics) would not be markedly inspiring, even if very well written and entertaining. Unlike television, you have to keep things interesting to get people to shell out $8 to see the flick. You can't make it episodic, you do have to keep it going. Hopefully, Marvel's movies will break the mold, but the quick decline in superhero sequels is not solely a matter of incompetence. I think X-Men, because of its nature, has the best shot. Spiderman 3 or 4 will have to be bigger and better than 1 and 2 were and they're not going to make a movie that's just going to draw Spiderman fans. So how do you make it bigger and better at the same time. These two goals conflict and it has yet to be balanced. Not remarkably easy to do. 4) Character respect - In general, you don't want a Batman movie that really pisses off Batman fans. You can't avoid sniping from a million fanboy/would-be screenwriters that they'd do it differently, but my interest quickly waned after the third movie in large part because Schumacher wasn't handling the characters or story correctly. If you're going to depart from the established characters, make it worthwhile. Two-Face, to say the least, was not.
My project tonight is to come up with what I would do if I were in charge of the franchise. It will be posted over at RAWbservations.
UPDATE: This is actually even tougher than I had imagined. No way I'm going to be able to finish it tonight.
He very well may be if reports streaming out fo Hollywood are correct. Rumor has it that Christian Bale, star of such movies as American Psycho and Reign of Fire is going to be the next Batman in the Christopher Nolan-directed feature. I am fairly pleased with this, if true, because Bale is a good actor who is not typical "Hollywood", AKA, he wasn't picked just because the girls go ga-ga over him and will make bucket-loads of money on name-power alone. This has been the problem plaguing the WB's recent attempts to make a Superman movie. Luckily, Nolan has proven his worth and even though WB has tried, Nolan has considerable weight to get the actors he wants. From what I've seen, Bale can play both the good brooding Bats and the playboy Wayne with equal ability. I look forward to more news on this subject.
I vowed to never use Blogger again after a series of difficulties with Blogger Pro.
What can I say? I'm cheap.
I got this email today:
Hi there. Evan Williams here, co-founder of Pyra/Blogger.
I wanted to give you a heads-up about something we're announcing shortly: We're no longer offering Blogger Pro as a separate product and we're folding most of the features into regular (free) Blogger.
It's sad but true. (Except it's not really that sad.)
Don't worry - nothing you paid for is going away. And while you won't be charged, your subscription is still valid. You will continue to have access to features like RSS and post-via-email that are still not in the free version. You'll also have priority support from our expanded team and new support system: http://help.blogger.com .
More importantly, I want to stress that we couldn't have gotten to where we are today without you. Pro subscribers helped keep us going as a struggling start-up, when servers and bandwidth were at an extreme premium. We wanted to keep basic Blogger free, but we needed to start charging in order to keep the lights on. So we built new things that would appeal to some Blogger users (namely, you).
Thanks to supportive people like yourself, this plan allowed us to grow and build a better service -- and, eventually, get us to much more stable ground. We're eternally grateful, and I hope you were happy with the relationship, as well.
Today, as you may know, Blogger's situation is much different. For one thing, we're part of Google. (If you missed that announcement, check the FAQ: http://www.blogger.com/about/blogger_google_faq.pyra). Google has lots of computers and bandwidth. And Google believes blogs are important and good for the web.
This is a good thing.
So we're in the fortunate position of being able to give back to our users. Specifically, we want give all of you who paid for Pro, a Blogger hoodie as a way of saying thanks. Just go to http://new.blogger.com/sweatshirt.pyra by October 1, 2003 to claim yours.
We feel this move will be good for all Blogger users, and we're excited about the many new things we have in the pipeline. Stay tuned.
Thanks again, Ev.
Ev... you sweet-talker you.
More seriously, it's a quite nice "thank you" and technically unnecessary.
Of course, to all those that pointed out that they've had none of the problems with Blogger Standard that I had with Blogger Pro:
Schizotypal Many believe that schizotypal personality disorder represents mild schizophrenia. The disorder is characterized by odd forms of thinking and perceiving, and individuals with this disorder often seek isolation from others. They sometimes believe to have extra sensory ability or that unrelated events relate to them in some important way. They generally engage in eccentric behavior and have difficulty concentrating for long periods of time. Their speech is often over elaborate and difficult to follow.
Histrionic People with histrionic personality disorder are constant attention seekers. They need to be the center of attention all the time, often interrupting others in order to dominate the conversation. They use grandiose language to discribe everyday events and seek constant praise. They may dress provacatively or exaggerate illnesses in order to gain attention. They also tend to exaggerate friendships and relationships, believing that everyone loves them. They are often manipulative.
Obsessive-Compulsive Obsessive-Compulsive personality disorder is similar to obsessive-compulsive anxiety disorder. People with this disorder are overly focused on orderliness and perfection. Their need to do everything "right" often interferes with their productivity. They tend to get caught up in the details and miss the bigger picture. They set unreasonably high standards for themselves and others, and tend to be very critical of others when they do not live up to these high standards. They avoid working in teams, believing others to be too careless or incompetent. They avoid making decisions because they fear making mistakes and are rarely generous with their time or money. They often have difficulty expressing emotion.
Moderate
Schizoid People with schizoid personality disorder avoid relationships and do not show much emotion. They genuinely prefer to be alone and do not secretly wish for popularity. They tend to seek jobs that require little social contact. Their social skills are often weak and they do not show a need for attention or acceptance. They are perceived as humorless and distant and often are termed "loners."
Narcissistic Narcissistic personality disorder is characterized by self-centeredness. Like histrionic disorder, people with this disorder seek attention and praise. They exaggerate their achievements, expecting others to recongize them as being superior. They tend to be choosy about picking friends, since they believe that not just anyone is worthy of being their friend. They tend to make good first impressions, yet have difficulty maintaining long-lasting relationships. They are generally uninterested in the feelings of others and may take advantage of them.
Avoidant Avoidant personality disorder is characterized by extreme social anxiety. People with this disorder often feel inadequate, avoid social situations, and seek out jobs with little contact with others. They are fearful of being rejected and worry about embarassing themselves in front of others. They exaggerate the potential difficulties of new situations to rationalize avoiding them. Often, they will create fantasy worlds to substitute for the real one. Unlike schizoid personality disorder, avoidant people yearn for social relations yet feel they are unable to obtain them. They are frequently depressed and have low self-confidence.
Dependent Dependent personality disorder is characterized by a need to be taken care of. People with this disorder tend to cling to people and fear losing them. They may become suicidal when a break-up is imminent. They tend to let others make important decisions for them and often jump from relationship to relationship. They often remain in abusive relationships. They are overly sensitive to disapproval. They often feel helpless and depressed.
