And Other Things

Do you watch “Dexter,” dear reader? If so, did you see the season finale a few nights ago? If you did, perhaps you are aware that they CROSSED THE LINE! That was NOT COOL!

Ahem.

I’m sorry. I’ll get over this, really.

(GAMING TALK: Skip if uninterested)

“Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2″ has stubbornly refused to retract its claws from me, and I doubt it will release me any time soon. I’m realizing now that the fundamentals of its multiplayer components are thoroughly, almost stubbornly, sound, relying on a constant wave of positive reinforcement to keep you playing. “Halo 3″ is a surprisingly negative game: lose two games in a row, or quit a round early, and it starts taking thingsfrom you. MW2 is, frankly, infinitely more cunning in its understanding of human nature. The game is just happy you’re playing, so as long as you continue to do so, you keep getting stuff. You’re running along shooting guys, and suddenly you hear an electric guitar bang out a power chord, and a message flashes across your screen: “Marksman I”

Marksman I? What the hell is that?

“+859 Points!” (it’ s always a weirdly specific number like that)

All right!

Only when you research it later do you realize that the game had been silently waiting for you to get 100 kills with this particular weapon, or while crouched, or on a Tuesday, or whatever. Infinity Ward, bless their hearts, are just making up excuses to pat their customers on the back: “You shot 20 guys after reloading, nice work!” It’s carrot and stick minus the stick. Personally, I prefer that approach; I gave you guys sixty hard-earned dollars, so hell yes I’d like you to treat me like some kind of genius. Even though I adore “Halo 3″ down to my bones, I realize now that I just don’t play it often because it’s like having a freaking job. If I just had a long day and I want to unwind, do I wanna see a toy I purchased for my amusement demote me? Games should not punish you, period; they can make you do something over, but actually taking away what you had previously earned because you didn’t play well enough is…unnecessary.

I know Bungie’s answer to this: it’s not a punishment, we just want to put you against the right people. I call BS on this. They can plug their ears and sing “lalalala,”  but they still know damned well that those ranks are personal for people who play the game. Pretending like no one should be offended when they’re dropped from a 32 to a 31 is just not realistic.

(GAMING TALK Over)

The trailer for Ridley Scott’s new flick “Robin Hood” just emerged, I snuck a look and I’m not really blown away. It was one of those teasers where they strip out even the faintest mention of a story and just quick-cut between people getting impaled. This tells you a lot about where they’re going with the film’s marketing, or at least where they’re starting out: 18-35 males. It’s not a very impressive opening volley, and honestly it feels a little 90s, if I can use that term. Ridley ran into this problem with “Body of Lies” as well: an excellent film that came off like a dinosaur from the age of Michael Bay, and got passed over. The irony was, “Lies” itself was anything but outdated: it was a taut, brainy, sophisticated thriller that better captured the American-Middle Eastern conflict than most movies. But the trailers pitched it as “The Rock” in Afghanistan, and it went nowhere. I think they should reconsider how this dude’s films get marketed.

I’m also surprised to discover that they’re running with that whole “true story behind the legend” thing; I would have thought the floundering failure of “King Arthur” was example enough not to retread that path. I see why people think a stripped down myth will work, since gritty, realistic reinvention has applied itself so well in the world of superheroes. The problem is, “Arthur” and movies like it misapply the lessons of this technique: they take out the supernatural elements, rework narratives we already liked, and come out with something that isn’t the movie we paid for. You have to be very careful when you do these grounded versions of classic stories not to get too snooty about them. The team behind “Arthur” would have had a blockbuster on their hands if they had shot the film in the same style, but kept Merlin, dragons, and all that good stuff.

That’s the secret to modern blockbusters: making the incredible real. We live in an age of scientific discovery; we’re constantly beating back our old preconceptions about the magical qualities of the world, and whether we admit it or not, sometimes we get tired of it. Sometimes we get fed up with how flat and spiritless the world has started to feel. “Batman Begins” wasn’t successful because it was gritty, it was successful because it was gritty but Batman still had a sweet car. The satisfaction is not from taking out the fantastic, but from making the fantastic tangible. “Robin Hood” seems to be on dangerous territory in this respect: I know they flirted with making the titular hero and the Sheriff of Nottingham the same person—an idea that only a screenwriter would like—and even though they backed off of that one, the air of this movie is still too removed. There’s nothing visual here to connect us to the icon.

Watching the trailer, I realize for the first time why this movie is being made: it’s a sequel to “Gladiator.” I don’t know how I missed it. Russell Crowe was launched into the stratosphere by Ridley Scott, and now that he’s had some duds and his reputation is on the rocks, he’s returning to the thing that got him started in the first place. Not really a terrible decision, but I hope the people pumping this thing out have a plan for getting women into the theater. I don’t know for sure, but I’m fairly certain the ladies have turned their backs on Russell, and he’s going to need them back to recapture his old spark. I’ve read fascinating stuff on why Maximus was such an appealing character to women: he was strong but didn’t like violence, a devoted family man, he could beat a thug off of you and write you a poem on the same day. This is also why Jason Bourne does so well, people in this country admire and relate to the reluctant warrior (not to be confused with the coward or the pacifist…we hate both). America wants to be Maximus.

My point is, “Robin Hood” is an attempt to make lightning strike twice. Will it? I’m not so sure. The Middle Ages are kind of a downer, that’s why the closest we ever get to them in the cinema is “Lord of the Rings.” And with Crowe’s reputation as the sensitive hunk destroyed by bizarre incidents and strange career choices, I don’t think this movie is going to carry the kind of weight that “Gladiator” did. I’m sure some dudes will go see it, but frankly, some dudes will go see anything.