Monthly Archive for November, 2009

I recently acquired maybe the best thing ever invented. It’s a strategy game called “Rogue Planet,” and it is played on my iPod touch. The player is perched in a bird’s eye view over a massive battle, and asked to coordinate the tactics of one side against the other. Imagine “Risk” combined with chess, you’ve pretty much got how this game plays out. Except it has robots and aliens, which instantly makes it better than either one. There are dozens of different vehicle and infantry types, multiple game modes, tons of different encounters, and each battle requires precise organization of resources, manpower, and tactical advantage. It’s not your daddy’s iPod game. 

Anyway, the point is, this technological marvel allows me to engage in strategic warfare at my convenience: on the bus, on the metro, on the go in general. It’s not some stupid Pong knock off, this is a deep, robust combat simulator, where you get to be the general. I’ve learned the hard way that shouting excerpts from Sun Tzu’s “Art of War” at my iPod while walking down Wilshire Blvd is not socially acceptable behavior. I persist nonetheless. Here is a thorough list of things I am prone to shouting while playing the game:

-”What the enemy commander doesn’t realize, and never will, is that…”

-”They’ll be studying that one at West Point next year!”

-”I served with your father, soldier. He was a good man. He’d be proud of you today.”

-”We few, we happy few, we band of brothers!”

-”The art of war is deception. And also robots. Robots help.”

-”Face me, you coward!”

-”Hah! The (name of a formation, often nonsensical)! How predictable.”

-”Your soldiers are hired guns. Mine would follow me into hell!”

If there was any doubt that “New Moon’s” record-shattering would end with its opening weekend, it must surely be eradicated now. Out of left field comes “The Blind Side,” an inspirational Sandra Bullock drama which opened last weekend, and yet has made a bid to claim this weekend’s crown. I’ve been saying for awhile that the entire “Twilight” series has a huge repeat viewer problem; that is to say, they don’t have any. It represents the ultimate in opening-weekend thinking: plant them in the seats on Friday night, who cares what happens after. These aren’t good movies, even a fan will probably tell you that if you don’t catch him/her on opening night. I think Summit Entertainment gets fooled by what is in some ways communal denial: their target demographic feigning a deeper commitment to the material for the sake of the social event. No one can deny that the cliffhanger drop-off in ticket sales for both of these films is stunning, and more importantly it’s evidence that most “Twi-hards” aren’t quite as blind as you think. They talk a big game, hiding behind the “you’ve got your geeky things and I have mine” defense (which is the conversational equivalent of pleading the 5th), but deep down they’re perfectly aware that these motion pictures suck. Some guys I know get frustrated when the ladies in question won’t admit this, but of course they won’t if you put them on the defensive. Try getting a “Twilight” fan away from her girlfriends, be nice to her, and see if she doesn’t admit this stuff is a guilty pleasure.

Anyway, my point is very simple: “Twilight” has no legs, not even with its core audience. It’s a financial sprinter. That’s fine, because Summit makes these things for chicken scratch (comparatively), and yet I can’t help but wonder why the company doesn’t long for something more. Brand awareness is an open door to limitless potential profit, you’ve overcome the first and most inscrutable obstacle to a phenomenon. Why not fight harder? Why do you care so little about the fourth weekend? Give that script another pass, man, pay good money and get yourself an actual writer. Chris Weitz was an inspired choice to direct, but it doesn’t make any difference, because the producers of this series are such control freaks that the two flicks are indistinguishable. It makes the Bond people look hands-off. I wonder what the point is of even hiring someone like that if you’re just going to walk them like a dog on set anyway. Why not just get some dude who does commercials that no one cares about? It’s so bizarre, Hollywood’s habit of drafting talent and then cutting them off at the knees.

“The Blind Side” really did originate from nowhere, I never saw this movie coming. Bullock is apparently more bankable than I realized, she’s gained a lot of steam amongst women. I never would have imagined “Side” to be a hit, but now that it is, I’m forced to look for reasons to explain it. My feeling was that a football-related movie aimed at women made little to no sense, since it would theoretically come out neither fish nor fowl. Perhaps I was wrong, and older male audiences were less picky than I know my age range would be. I think there are two other basic components to their victory:

1. Timing. Thanksgiving weekend was a good call, someone deserves a promotion. You’ve got families all over America spending time together, and they have to find something grandma can sit through. Boom. It’s also kind of better than the Christmas season, because you don’t have to stick to certain subject matter—there’s very little conception of a “Thanksgiving movie,” so you’ve got more thematic latitude. This has been tried before with varying success, however, and the sports connection notwithstanding, I still insist this flick had very little appeal to men. I don’t deny they agreed to go to it because their wives were giving them the stink eye, but that’s hardly a compliment. There must have been something else, which brings me to the second major asset “The Blind Side” had…

2. Quality. It sounds nuts, but the reviews for this thing were all positive, and it’s amazing what that can do for the indecisive nuclear family standing in the theater lobby, staring blankly at the showings. Anyone who cast a wayward glance at Rotten Tomatoes or the Washington Post probably noticed that the press was shrugging and smiling, and they stored that information away. “The reviews are good” can be the straw that breaks the camel’s back, so long as it’s not some kind of Oscar-baiting art drama that no one wants to sit through.

That’s my best shot at an explanation. It’s a little flimsy, although I would contend both of the above-mentioned factors were instrumental in “The Blind Side’s” success. I’m just not positive I’ve gotten the whole picture yet, I feel like there’s a variable I’m missing. Oh well. I’m a little tired at the moment, but next time I’ll review “2012″ for you. I’ve seen it twice, and have some interesting insights.

PS: “Old Dogs” tanked. Nice work, Dear Reader.

The original “Assassin’s Creed” was a beautiful, captivating premise for a game…but that’s about it. It was one of those games that needs a sequel, and a sequel is what it received. The beauty of the gaming world is that the second installments are nearly always stronger than the first, sometimes to the point of wiping out the original’s memory. Oh, if only the same were true at the multiplex. I’ve grabbed a rental copy of AC2, and so far my impression is very positive. The story is very engaging, the central protagonist is well fleshed out and sympathetic, which helps to avoid the cold feeling of the older edition. I’m also impressed by the loving care with which the developers present Renaissance Italy to us. I’m no expert, but it certainly seems like they’ve gone to great lengths to produce a credible historical experience. Little nuggets of information about the science, religion and culture of the times is always appearing, backed up by walking, talking examples which stand right in front of you. It’s a really cool experience.

More importantly, “Left 4 Dead 2″ is out, and of course I own it. To say this thing is a step forward for Valve just scratches the surface. Scavenge Mode is a revelation, a completely new strategic battleground. The new campaigns are not simply new landmarks, they embrace a more robust and dynamic design philosophy. “Hard Rain” sees you traversing a long, winding path to retrieve gasoline, then returning through a sudden monsoon that obscures your vision. “Dead Center” drops you in the middle of a burning hotel with only pistols and melee weapons. “Dark Carnival” requires you to navigate a twisting wooden roller coaster on foot, swarms of zombies clamoring at you from below. This and other examples highlights how far Valve has come from the first game, where the campaigns were excellent but minimal.

What’s especially incredible is that all of this happened in a year. The graphics are sharper, the gameplay is tighter, everything feels like a real evolution, and yet they got this thing out of the gate in a matter of months. I realize now what Valve has never been able to admit about the original: they weren’t happy with it. It’s the only explanation that makes sense. It was a landmark game, but the developers clearly wanted so much more for it, and couldn’t rest until they had delivered. This is all the more likely since Valve employees are often allowed to choose which projects they work on. It was mysterious to us, because we all loved “Left 4 Dead” so much, and there’s not a PR specialist in the world who would allow the company to tell us they were unhappy. I know there was an epic meeting where the employees petitioned Gabe Newell to produce another one, and I think this is what they said:

“We didn’t get it done.” Newell must have protested, insisting the company does not release sequels this soon. “Then let’s make it an expansion, or something, but there’s too much we didn’t do.” Perhaps he asked what the big problem was. Aside from the obvious (versus only playable in two campaigns, small number of campaigns and game modes), I’ll bet they thought the level design was too simple, the number of weapons too small, the opportunities for camping too great. I think they envisioned a more fear-oriented experience, whereas “Left 4 Dead” became about endurance and exhaustion. He probably agreed, and then as production evolved they found themselves getting inspired and making more. Too much more. Before they knew it, they had an army of content. Now this is pure speculation, but I’ll bet they tried to get Microsoft to release it on the cheap, but no dice. That’s not how Microsoft rolls. So they put out a sequel, and they took the boycott on the chin. That’s my guess. Take it or leave it.

Anyway,

We are, yet again, on the brink of a “Twilight” movie. Now some of you know I saw the first one, and had a somewhat unique opinion of it. I disliked it, don’t get me wrong, but I diagnosed the problem differently than most people: I felt it had a director-shaped hole in it. I’m not saying anything about Catherine Hardwicke, I can’t imagine who could retain control of a film under those circumstances, but that’s still my opinion. The tone was wrong, the special effects were wrong, the pacing was wrong, the acting was wrong, basically anything a director is supposed to oversee was wrong. That no one else seemed to grasp this tells me the job of a director is not fully understood. People are inclined to blame the source material, but I cannot speak to that, having never read it. I don’t think there is anything fundamentally broken in the broad strokes of “Twilight:” young girl encounters a dark and seductive stranger, falls in love, is ushered into a world of danger and excitement. All of that is fine, you could make a good movie from that, so the devil is invariably in the details. Many smart people, including Stephen King, have contested that Stephanie Meyer’s writing is deficient both in style and content, and that any movie which pledges loyalty to her work must be doomed from the beginning. That is a possibility. 

“Twilight” represents the entertainment industry’s awakening to the female demographic. But how awake are they? Hollywood is slow, stupid, and aimed at white males—they are legendary for refusing to change, even when there’s good money in it. Tyler Perry has made more money than Croesus, but the industry just keeps plugging its ears and singing “lalalala” every time one of his movies comes out. Are women going to get the same treatment? Certainly, movies geared at women have been coming out for years, but it’s half-hearted, crass capitalization. There is no substantive, thriving female-only cinematic arena that I am aware of. They get a few chick flicks per year, and everyone knows that the action movie they’ll actually come with their boyfriends to see is going to make bank, but besides that they’re left with very little. 

(The following is very anecdotal and unscientific. I’m okay with that.) 

Is this going to change? I’m not really certain. Very few women (and I do mean women, as opposed to girls) who see “Twilight” will tell you it’s a really good movie, but that doesn’t alter their devotion to it, and it is at this point that I become fascinated. Behavior like that would never fly in the geek circles I move in. The companies that make my video games are up all night neglecting their families trying to stay ahead of my every whim. In ten years they’ve taken us from huddling on a couch together with four controllers to playing a 100 person battle simultaneously with people in Japan. The action movies I see, even when they’re total crap, are sunk with millions of dollars in special effects to try and keep my attention, each one one-upping the next. Everything in the 18-35 male demographic is frantic, the competition for my affections is brutal, and the payoffs are huge.

That is not the way of things in “Twilight” land. It doesn’t matter how the movie is, the excitement is the event itself. Oh sure, some people made a fuss when Rob Pattinson was cast as Edward, but besides that these fangirls are completely different animals from fanboys. I hate to be mean about this, but I’m noticing that nothing marketed explicitly for girls is ever…particularly good. Again, look at the arms race going on just so I’ll plop down 10 bucks at the movie theater. Now look at Summit Entertainment, happily cranking out “Twilight” movies. Anyone who reads the trades knows that “New Moon” is famous for how little it cost to make, arguably even less than the original one when all is considered. They’re not just relaxed, they’re actually spending less money each time around (relatively speaking). They’re pumping these things out on the cheap. Does that sound frantic to you? 

The one exception I can think of, although I’m sure there are others, is “Sex and the City,” which built a very demanding fan-base that reminded me of my own community. I loathe that show, but I admit that I respect devotion to it in a way I never will for “Twilight.” My point is still the same, though: why is this the exception, and not the rule? Why is the female demographic still being fed a formula that hasn’t been adjusted or developed in decades? Are women happy with this situation? What’s going on? I have a theory:

Identity. One thing that occurred to me is that women are hard to market to right now, because women are changing. Recent, highly publicized studies have suggested the female sex is less happy now than they were 50 years ago—an embarrassing blow to us all, given what has happened in that time. The counter argument to these findings is simple: women have earned their way into the workplace, and yet have not shed the culturally assigned duties they had beforehand. There’s too much on their plates, they are expected to do everything. Eventually, a more advanced way of thinking about their gender will have to emerge. 

Female social identity is an evolving thing, and marketing doesn’t like to hit moving targets. If you’re making a movie for women…who are you talking about? Who is a woman in today’s society? What are her priorities? Some want to be wives and stay-at-home mothers, and that’s one group you can appeal to. Some want to have careers, and there’s another. But most, it seems to me, are very much in the middle, caught between impulses in either direction. Eventually they choose one or both, but that doesn’t change the fact that their arrival at those choices is coming from a very new way of looking at themselves and their world. This new psychology is not entirely without inner conflict, and that makes pandering to them…tricky. We are only at the beginning of finding out who women really are, and who they are going to be in the future. 

For this reason, everything in female-marketed cinema plays it safe. Mostly they use old formulas that work: romance and interpersonal drama, appealing to a woman’s naturally higher level of social sensitivity. The reason the ladies of the world are okay with this for now is that they are still in a process of discovery, too. I think they would find it premature to aim something at a place they haven’t arrived yet, especially since no one can be positive what that place will look like. Cinema may play an important role in this process, though: as female film makers become more prominent (God willing), perhaps they will use this art form to explore themselves and try to define their future. We could be on the tipping point of a female cinematic renaissance, a period of unbridled creativity and ground-breaking auteurs. 

Until then…we have “New Moon.” No offense, fans of the series, I mean in no way to try and take it away from you. I just think it’s going to be outdated.

“The Hollywood Reporter” has recently published a brief, moderately insightful article which should be filed under “Captain Obvious.” In it, they wonder aloud if the age of super-stars selling out movie theaters isn’t coming to an end. I honestly think they wrote it as a formality, some kind of grave observation to mark the calendar. Of course it’s coming to an end. Look at the box office, look at what’s happening to the movie industry. You’ve got “A Christmas Carol” going down in flames, “Surrogates” biting the dust, “Land of the Lost,” “Duplicity,” “Imagine That,” the list of big-name disasters just keeps swelling. Meanwhile, here come “District 9,” “Paranormal Activity,” “The Hangover,” “The Hurt Locker,” all blasting out of the gate with zero point zero A-list talent, a quarter of the budget, and three times the profits. “D9″ was the prima donna of the bunch simply because Peter Jackson was associated with it, but no one said the age of a director filling the house was going anywhere.

Point is, I hope you enjoyed your private honey wagons, guys, because the sandman cometh. It’s game over. I don’t think we’ll stop having stars, but the notion of a “star vehicle” is going bye-bye. Back in the day, Hollywood operated on what we pejoratively refer to as the “studio system,” now it’s a relic. The same will soon be true for marquee marketing. Honest to God, Hollywood is in kind of a tailspin right now, there are earthquakes all over the industry, everyone’s running for their lives. Executives are watching paralyzed as tiny little indie projects (which they used to turn down like prom dates) make bank, made all the worse by the dull thud of another John Travolta family flick gutter balling.

If I were Russell Crowe/Christian Bale/Leonardo DiCaprio/Tom Hanks/Denzel Washington, the thing that would scare me the most is knowing that there’s no benefit of the doubt, no wiggle room; star power need only trend downwards to ruin their careers, it doesn’t technically have to flat line. Executives don’t get paid to let disasters happen and then learn from them, they’re trying to get ahead of the curve. If they start seeing top-line movies go nowhere, they’re going to strike preemptively, and we may never know if the pattern would continue. Putting stars in a movie is not easy: they’re pissy during negotiations, you have to pay them boatloads of money, they’re frequently disruptive on set, and in worst-case scenarios like Edward Norton, they may even hijack your damn movie. Nobody’s going to put up with all of this crap for a few million net gain, they need to guarantee crushing success. If they don’t, screw ‘em, let’s go find a character actor who gets paid reasonable money and arrives to work on time.

Many of them deserve this. It’s been a fragile, bizarre business model that has allowed dozens of socially maladjusted weirdos to wreck havoc on back lots like spoiled children, protected by the comforting familiarity they offer American moviegoers. They’re going to find themselves looking rather stupid the first time they try a temper tantrum and lose their job for it. The well is drying up, my friends, and I say it’s about time. What in the hell were we thinking, America? Why did we classify movies by the actors in them? “Oh let’s go see that new Colin Farrell movie.” It’s not a “Colin Farrell” movie! His involvement is not some kind of “guaranteed fresh” stamp—most likely the opposite, in fact, since they know you’ll see it because he’s there! Do you see his name next to the producing, writing, or directing credits?

The smartest star in America is also the most successful: Will Smith. He’s never actually verbalized it, and most of his fans (which is everyone ever) aren’t aware of it, but his movies retain that “Will Smith movie” feel because he does put a stamp of approval on them. He does pick his projects. He’s the only one who seems to grasp that brand familiarity doesn’t work if you keep feeling ripped off by your purchase. Too many morons in Hollywood are obsessed with getting behinds in the seats, and they assume it doesn’t matter what happens when the lights go down. Smith knows better, he knows his name is only as good as his customer satisfaction. I’m not saying he’s in all the best movies, he’s not, but he is almost never in a turd. “Hancock” isn’t great, but it doesn’t make you angry you watched it, and you can’t deny that the concept (while imperfectly executed) was engaging. “I Am Legend” also had flaws, but it had many strengths too, and was a really exciting flick. Will is very careful never to betray the trust of the American who plops down hard money to see him. He’ll tolerate slips, but not crass garbage. It always feels like he tried to make an interesting product. The only other successful disciple of this method is Matt Damon, who apparently was paying attention when Smith rocketed to the top. Damon also has an imperfect track record, but almost no cash-in quick flicks, nothing he just jumped onto for a paycheck. Every movie feels like it grabbed his personal interest, which keeps his credibility high. George Clooney and Brad Pitt are both on-again off-again with this system, but that’s better than nothing.

The benefits both of these men reap are enormous. If you say something is a “Russell Crowe movie,” I’m sorry but it means next to nothing. If you say a “Matt Damon movie,” you’re talking. If you say a “Will Smith movie,” the whole world’s going to see it so there’s no point saying anything else. These two will survive the death of the system that built them, because their names function as personal recommendations for commercial entertainment.

As a curious side note, both of these men shared one of their rare duds together: “The Legend of Baggar Vance.” It must have been a good learning experience for both.

The new 30 Seconds to Mars song, and I use “song” generously, is not good. That is a simple and literal sentence, efficient yet flat and lacking resonance. I’m now going to extract the core idea behind it into hyperbole and overstatement for dramatic effect (in other words, par for the course, Dear Reader). This thing is an audio plague. The Geneva Convention forbids playing it to prisoners of war. It contains trans fats. This song is the hunter who shot Bambi’s mom. It asks women at the bar what their “sign” is. God sent it to Pharaoh so he would release the Hebrews. The band should be quarantined in a biohazard shelter for producing it, and I use “band” generously. What were these people thinking? I also use “people” generously.

If you skip to 5:57 on this YouTube video, I’m pretty sure you will see the new Tim Schafer game “Brutal Legend” sum up what 30 Seconds has become better than I ever could:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZGMb8SG6WHo

Take a long hard look, Jared Leto. It’s you. Now I’m not here to rain on your parade necessarily. I mean let’s face it, my friend, you collect a paycheck and sell records, and right now anyone doing that deserves credit. But your music is bad, and that stings because I fought long and hard for your first record. Sure the lyrics were dumb, sure it was pretentious, but it had something, and I stood by you! Your follow-up taught me that such behavior was a silly mistake, and I quietly excused myself from the room. But it looks like your third record is going to be so amazingly awful that everyone’s going to start saying, “Hey, didn’t Andrew tell me that band wasn’t that bad? What an idiot!” In ten years, you’re going to be putting me through so much misery I’ll have to move to a different country and change my name.

Yes, I was wrong about you, 30 Seconds to Mars. I’ve been wrong many times, it’s a function of being loud-mouthed. Here are other examples:

1. Hand sanitizer. It’s great, but it turns out my conviction that it should replace bar soap is medically unsound. In cases of general cleanliness it rocks, but if anything visible is on your hands, it can’t help you.

2. Kings of Leon. Are actually fine, I heard “Notion” and liked it a lot. “Sex on Fire” can still fall in a well and die, though.

3. Playstation 3. Used to be an embarrassment, and I maintain that it was, but with this incredible price drop and a slew of exclusive titles, it has become a respectable investment. If you bought one at launch, I mock and deride you. If you buy one now, I can understand that. Talk about rallying in the fourth quarter.

4. Good Charlotte. I was under the impression no one cared about this band. Turns out they sold 2 million records last time they released something. I guess it was just wishful thinking.

5. Silversun Pickups. I mean, I would have sworn that was a chick on lead vocals. We already talked about this one.

For a full and detailed account of my capacity to say things not based in reality, consult my wife’s recently published three-edition encyclopedia: “What is He Talking About: A Reference Guide to Andrew Being Wrong.” I just opened randomly to page 175…no sorry, it’s actually page 1,750. We seem to have finally reached “B.” Hmm, what have we here? Let me just scroll through, “Batman is real and I met him,” “Batman is real and I AM him,” “Brackets denote subtraction in algebra,” “Big Brothers Big Sisters is an adoption agency,” man there is good stuff in here.

Actually, that joke is unfair to my wife, who spends a huge chunk of her daily life nodding politely while I make crap up. What makes it even worse is that there are these select few things I randomly end up correct about, and then I’m reinforced in my behavior. I’m still jones-ing from the time I said Michael Clarke Duncan was the voice over guy in the “Subway” commercials and then he actually was. That was years ago. It wasn’t even that Corelyn entirely disagreed with me, she just took issue with my certainty. I stated my opinion, she replied that it was possible but his voice type is likely easy to mimic. My reply was simply, “Nope.” What commenced from there was a discussion that lingered on the nature of being “so sure” until we had basically summarized Descartes’ early work: “You can’t just know! That could be anybody!” I remember my exact words after she said this: “I know I’m right. It’s him.” I chuckle at it presently, but at the time I couldn’t fathom what the problem was. It may be that I am more like Corelyn now then I was then, and I see it from her perspective. As usual, it was not the thing itself, but the way I went about it. I wouldn’t wiggle, I wouldn’t accept the possibility of something else, I had zero factual data and a two-second impression (which I formed while not even paying attention) and yet I was talking down to the whole room. Yes, there were other people in the room, every single one agreed with her, I still wouldn’t budge.

No joke, this topic became a sore one. For months we could not talk about it, and I wish I was kidding. The day we finally looked it up was an absolute nadir for Corelyn, and for me perhaps the sweetest victory I have ever tasted. It was like morning dew, Dear Reader. I remember the look on her face as she gazed at the Heavens, and I realized she was no longer displeased with me—her beef was with God. “Explain yourself,” she seemed to be thinking, much in the same way the prophets of old watched Babylonian kings prosper and demanded satisfaction. It didn’t help that I was doing a little victory jig around the room, and repeatedly exclaiming “Touchdown” while holding my arms straight up at either side of my head. Sometimes, it’s just worth it to be in the dog house for a little bit.