An Idiot in the Wasteland: Day 3

Today's short lived character followed a slightly different, and in most ways better, trajectory than his two predecessors. Having spent some time with the combat mechanics, I decided that the key was a high Agility, so I put 4 points into that, dropped my Strength to 3, then After the cave wandering and rat shooting, I started treking around via overland map once more. This time however I do so slowly, poking along one square at a time (query, why does the zone map use hexes, but the overland a grid?).

Taking Fri's suggestion, I stop at a villige, exchange five words with some dude named Seth, and end up in a dark cave filled with scorpions the size of a lawnmower, but much less useful for yardwork. They are good at dropping my hitpoints however, although I prove slightly more adept at killing them. Things are going very well, I've killed all but 2 or 3 of the scorpions by the sophisticated and ancient gaming technique of shooting them, then walking away. They can still get an attack in on me, but they can't double attack and by moving a few hexes every turn I can draw my current opponent away from any others, and so keep myself from being double teamed. Indeed things are going quite well, and then the game crashes when I'm trying to drop a knife I no longer need. Lovely. And I'd forgotten to save.

By this point I'd spent enough time dealing with the unintuitive interface and right clicking to toggle between movement mode, combat mode, and one I call 'look at stuff mode' that it actually makes some sense now. I'd also figured out how to make targeted attacks, and that the line of green dots across the top of the selected item panel are my AP. There are some idiosyncracies of the combat system that still escape me. Chief among these is the following; I have 9 AP and make an unaimed attack with the pistol, which takes 5 AP. This leaves me with 4 AP, or enough to move 4 hexes. However if I only move 3 hexes, my turn automatically ends, even though I have an AP left. What's the point of an AP system if it pulls stuff like this? I get so many AP a turn, I should get to spend them all, damnit!

I continue to find the interface a complete pain in the ass. Take the line of green dots representing AP. It's hard to do a snap count this way, and the color for a used AP is way too close to that of one I've not yet spent. Given that this is a stat I need to use quite literally every single combat turn, I find this inexcusable. A box labeled 'AP: 3/8' or something similar would be infinitely more usable, in line with cRPG convention from time immamorial, and generally not suck so much. The toggle for moving from one hand to another is similarly obscure, and indeed is something I stumbled on completely by chance. Thankfully I stumbled on it again fairly soon afterwords so I could switch back to my pistol. Still, I think I'll soldier on a bit more with this project.

An Idiot in the Wasteland: Day 2

It transpires that a PDF of the Fallout manual was installed along with the game, so I perused that before trying again. Also, some reflection revealed the mystery of the overhead map, which appears, at this time, to be a way to handle traveling long distances without requiring a lot of walking around boring wasteland, or else a lot of expensive to develop content. Perfectly reasonable, in other words.
So it turns out that Fallout doesn’t autosave, or at least not often, and my last character no longer existed. So I made a new character, skipped the cutscene of Mr. Scary Eyebrow Dude explaining why they’re kicking me out into a nuclear wasteland before being kicked out into a nuclear wasteland. I wander around the cave murdering rats before meandering out into the wasteland proper. From the overhead map, I make tracks for Vault 13. Just before arriving, the little red x I assume represents me stops moving and is replaced by a lightning bolt.
Once again using my keen gaming senses, I figure this means I’m being subjected to a random encounter, so I click the little green arrow that shows my location, blitz through the loading screen, and am dropped into the middle of a brown map right next to two large scorpion things. I’m fairly certain that these are radscorpions, and even more certain that they aren’t here to offer me tea and crumpets or else so I shoot them a few times. They sting me, dropping my nearly to hitpoints to zero, and I beat a tactical retreat. This is when I realize that I can walk faster than the scorpions, and so amble away from them towards the shaded border of the zone. This is a bit of a gamble, since I’m not certain that I will be allowed to leave the area with enemies present, but it seems to work since it shows me the overland map screen again.
I click on Vault 13, but instead get sent to a zone identical to the one I just left, albeit devoid of enormous scorpion thing. I walk to the border, which pulls up the overland map again. I try to move to Vault 13, but get bounced right back the empty desert zone. I try this a few more times, but with the same result, before I’m informed that I’ve died, I assume of exposure.
So far my progress has not been extraordinary. It’s not that I mind a bit of a learning curve in games, but this is ridiculous. Dying of exposure, if that’s what happened, is awesome, but I’d like to be told I’m dying of exposure. It’s not exactly as if telling me that would do anything to break immersion. Again, S.T.A.L.K.E.R. has a near vertical difficulty curve in the beginning of the game, and even later on there’s plenty of weird stuff that happens without explanation, but the fundamental information you need is usually made quite available- and this is a game that models bleeding, burning, blunt force trauma, bullet penetration and stopping power, radiation, exhaustion and hunger. Still, the atmosphere is strangely compelling, so I think I’ll keep dickering away at it.

Going to wayfinder

I’m going away for vacation for a week so no articles.  If anybody knows what Wayfinder is, see you there I suppose.  Hopefully I might get some more followers.  Will all regards.

From

EE

PS.

Looking at some of the current OOTs threads, my two favorite Elves are the High King (taking on Morgoth Single handed) and Feanor, because he stood up to…everybody.  Through he was a git

Old vs. New part 2, Return of the King vs. Return of the King

forget elijah wood, this is how an evil hobbit rolls

Right, now, after horribly ripping off Nostalgia Critics idea, erm I mean, improving upon his idea, now I started to consider he throw out idea at the end of his review, about the two Return of the King movies, which he dismissed right away. So, I figured I might as well try this comparison, and see if I can find something resembling an actual argument out of this. So here we have it, Peter Jackson’s Third Film vs. The animated version by Rakin/Bass. Now the animated one is made by the same company that made the animated adaptation of the Hobbit. And if you remember that, you will also remember it was awful, just painfully bad. So I really expected the worst when I saw the Animated Return of the King. However the animated adaptation has on advantage here, because I did not like Return of the King very much. In terms of loyalty to the original material, I’d rate the trilogy Fellowship Best, then Return of the King, then Two Towers. But in terms of actually enjoyable movies, Two Towers and Return of the King are switched, because of Jackson horrible editing. The entire movie is just focusing on one event for like 5 mins, before cutting to something else, then cutting to something else for another 5 mins, then cutting to something else. There is no build up, and thus very thing feels forced and unenthusiastic, except for the charge of the Riders and Shelob. But everything else was just rushed and simple, that the film wasn’t satisfying. The film was patchwork, badly handled, sloppy; it was just badly edited through and through. No suspense, flat characters, and boring, the film simultaneously suffered from trying to over come the other films in terms of popularity, as well as trying to keep a level sense of consistency. That being said, the film still has a lot of good actors, props, and scenes, even if they are short. So let’s have the face off

Now in Favor of the Peter Jackson film, is far better made, even with the painful editing. The props and sets are extremely awe inspiriting, the fights, until they are cut short that is, are actually pretty cool, and the various scenes are far more impressive. The movie has the advantage of three films to improve character development, and a far larger budget. But I think the animation one actually has a few points on its rival.

Basically, while the animation one is really badly animated and has a lot of absurdly campy dialogue, within a small scale, I actually think it tells a better story, and has more consistent themes. The Jackson version is all over the place trying to cover as much ground as possible, while the animated version focused on a select group of themes and builds off them. The whole concept of “the Elves are leaving to the west and the old age is ending” is actually mentioned early in the film, through songs, and the talks between Bilbo and Frodo, so it doesn’t come out of nowhere to people who haven’t read the books. Also there is a far greater empathizes upon the hobbits, who kind take a back seat in the Jackson version, as they try to get across a hostile and barren wasteland. In the books, the journey of Frodo and Sam is not one of epic adventures or fighting dangerous monsters, but the concept of hope vs. despair as they slowly, every so slowly crawl across the increasingly vile lands of Morder in the vain hope they might evade the Dark Lord’s attention. The journey isn’t glorious, it is hard, painful, and slow, and tiring, with the heroes fighting not against monsters and magic, but starvation and the cold. And while this is kinda glossed over in the Jackson version, it is a major focus of the cartoon, as the hobbits struggle to take another step and not give in to despair.

Also, while the Jackson version certainly covered a lot more information and ground from the book, and they deserve credit for that, the animated version seems to build up upon the plot devices while cutting many of them. For example, the whole aspect of the Ring’s corruption is actually played pretty sinisterly in the animated version, far more so than the Jackson version. Most of the songs are just simply corny, but one called “Bear of the Ring” is actually quite frankly, really sinister, and creepy, and constantly plays when the characters struggle with the ring. Now you’d think this is more blatant and obvious, but let’s compare two scenes. When Sam returns the ring to Frodo and is briefly tempted, he just looks at it, and then turns away. While in the animated cartoon, he has an actual vision (which happens in the book ironically enough), where he, Samwise, is a might general who overthrows the entire army of Morder and destroys the Dark Tower, then he uses his power to turn the vast barren lands into a vast garden and all of the orcs and trolls into animals, seemingly creating a utopia. And when you think about it, that is what the Ring does, it appeals to the ego, to the desire to good, and in doing so, corrupts, Sam using his powers to change both the land and creatures to suit his own whims, the sin of pride, of arrogance, of domination. And the way the power of the rings are shown almost s good, but in a twisted perverse version of the good ideal. And this is what it offers to a gardener, which is actually kinda of horrifying. Again, in the scene when Frodo is finally ultimately corrupted by the ring, in the Jackson version, he just kinda goes “bah, I’m evil now, poof” while in the other version he has a really down right demonic “Fool, I am no the ring’s, the ring is mine” as the evil chorus plays.

That being said, the higher quality of the Jackson film allows its scenes to be more moving and effective. The entire siege of Gondor for example is far better done, even through Faramir’s actor is just…utterly dead emotionally. But Théoden gets a great speech, and the Gandalf is far more impressive. And the final battle at the Black Gate is better, with on exception. In the book and to a lesser extent, the cartoon, the Mouth of Sauron is an ambassador, sent out to parley and the main characters just humiliate him and have him leave in score. But in the live action version (DVD version of course) they lope his head off before he actually does any attack on them. That’s horrible, killing the massager is awful, even if he is literally the high priest of the lord of darkness, the point is you don’t lower yourself to his level (actually lower, Sauron didn’t kill and massagers). Ug. That being said, in terms of characters, the Jackson version trumps the cartoon almost every time, with the exception of Denethor, who was far better acted in the Jackson version, but his insanity seemed to just be him being a nut for its own state, while he s a very complex character in the actual story, and while both versions make him a total loon, the cartoon one at least had more legitimate motivates I felt, or at least better explained ones. Gollum is so much better in the Jackson version and much as I hate to admit it, Sauron is, just because the cartoon version is exactly the same but has a smaller tower, and Gothmog (the tuber orc) was actually pretty cool. But one character I think was mixed on was the Witch King of Angmar. The animation of the character looks pretty silly, and his voice sounds like a broken machine. But despite the narm, the cartoon Witch King actually was more threatening. He has a greater build up, and his lines were just…better. They were lifted pretty much word from word from the book, and that actually make the character more horrifying. And while his voice was annoying, the crackling voice seems more engaged than the deep monotone of the Jackson Witch king, who just didn’t’ seem scary, while the robes worked for the Black Riders, the Witch King needs something more dramatic, more armored, more powerful, and more knightly, IE the one from the other animated LOTRS film. But hey. The orcs and trolls were still based on the silly animations of the hobbit movie, but they were slightly more threatening now, and more fleshed out. Even as all the fighting goes on, there are some bizarre scenes that seem to remind the audience that these orcs still have feelings, in one hallucination of the main characters of a happier land, they invite a pair of orc soldiers over to eat with them, who seem quite happy about the prospect. And later, there is the infamous “When there is a whip, there’s a way song”.

For those who don’t’ know, this is a very retro song where the orcs sing about how they are being lashed and forced to war, and there resentment about being used as battle fodder in the Dark Lord’s armies. And while the scene is pretty silly at first, when you listen to the lyrics, it kinda hits you that most of the orcs are draftees who “We don’t want to go to war today, but the lord of the lash says Nay, Nay, Nay”. This kinda adds a whole new dynamic to the war. Nothing is made out of it, but it is an interesting detail. Speaking of orc songs, “The tower of the teeth” is actually a pretty good war song in terms of intimidating one’s foes “Win the battle, lose the war, choice of evils lie before. If you win, you will lose, choice of evils, you will loose, the choice is yours, retreat”

So in the end, Jackson version wins of course, just because it is better made/better produced. But despite that the other version has some merit, lost within its general bad quality, but it isn’t totally worthless as the Nostalgia Critic has claimed…..thus I prove I’m better….Horary for pettiness.

From

EE

Ripping off the Nostalgia Critic, Ralph Bakshi vs. Peter Jackson

Interestedly enough, these guys did this first...

Now as all of you know, I am a huge Lord of the Rings fan, and still consider the series the best books I have ever read. I know that people mocking LOTRS is becoming a bit of a fad now, but honestly, in terms of productively, I don’t think anybody can beat JRR in either fantasy, or in my personal option, just enjoyable novels. I’ll conclude that books like Dubliners by James Joyce might be better written, but in terms of both personal enjoyment and quality of world building, JRR takes the cake. Anyways, as people who know me from the OOTS forum, I also have a beef with Peter Jackson. I don’t like him very much as a director, and with the exception of Weta Workshop, nothing he did as a director really impressed me, so much as the truly astounding cast he was able to get his hands on. I don’t dislike him, I’m just not impressed by anything he does. When it comes to the LOTRS films he did, as movies I thought they were pretty enjoyable and fun, and still rate them pretty highly, through his total inability to edit….anything was a pain, but that was saved by some truly astounding prop work as I will touch later. Judging the movies as adaptations, I was less impressed, I felt Fellowship was great, but the other two were disappointments. To sum this up without writing a full article, I’ve never believed the LOTRS was unfilmable ever, and I don’t begrudge changes that made sense, like the Barrow Wights, Tom, and Old man Willow. It was changes that didn’t make sense that annoyed me, or were superficial, like the Elves, Gimli being a comic relief, or Denathor being a 2 dimensional whack job. Now, before I saw these movies I had seen the Ralph Bakshi animated film, and I rather liked that as a child. Anyways, I decided to rip off the Nostalgia Critic’s idea http://www.thatguywiththeglasses.com/videolinks/thatguywiththeglasses/nostalgia-critic/9754-lotr and compare the two versions. Now I’m using a different standard than the Critic in terms of comparing the films. First, I’d just how something worked out as per loyalty to the book, and how something worked out better as an actual film. So, ripping of other people’s ideas ahoy. Again, we aren’t counting the Third film, because Ralph’s version didn’t get that far.

First off, the characters, starting with the Fellowship. Now I like Elijah Wood, and not just because he has my first name. He is very expressive, and I how he is able to convey his emotions without over acting, also being one of the few child actors who I actually respect. And his eyes are perfect for Frodo. But the critic was right in that the animated version was far stronger and much tougher than Frodo. And to an extent that’s more true to the book, movie Frodo is far more frail and less tough than his cartoon counterpart, who actually fights back against the ring wraiths and the trolls, as well as seeming far more upper class than Frodo who seems a lot like a kid. So in terms of closer to the book animated wins. But that being said, as a movie, I think I enjoyed Elijah Wood better. Despite being weaker and less tough, I didn’t really feel like calling him a pansy throughout the film every time he collapses, I more felt like I was him, surrounded by a bunch of super humans, and up against crazy monsters, and knowing that I’m three feet talking using a short sword. I mean, dropping the sword against giant hooded monsters may seem silly, but honestly, I could see myself doing that. And even when he fails dismally again and again to stand up for himself in the first movie, he was able to convey the emotion that he was trying. In the scene where the giant troll is attacking with the goblins and everybody is running around fighting stuff, and he just kinda hangs around before vainly attacking it, I really felt like he was trying to over come his fear of “OMG, a bunch of monstrous freaks are attacking me”, and to try to help, which he does eventually. And I really felt he was more unnerved by the whole journey itself, he was just nervous, out of his element, and, due to the ring, slowly going paranoid. And I thought the confrontation with Boromir was actually really emotionally well done, as two of my favorite actors, Sean Bean and Elijah Wood were facing off and while the anger was there, it was subdued, with Frodo dealing more with feelings of betrayal, and trying to know who to trust. So the ending of the first film, where he not only learns to stand on his own two feet, but also to trust other people, really felt strong. So as a film choice, I say Jackson Frodo is better.

When it comes to Sam…I don’t really have to write anything. Jackson version on both counts, what is there to say. I am personally not totally impressed by the Jackson same, I wanted a little bit more subtly, but that being said, I felt that he played the part well, and the actor was certainly good.

Merry/Pippin are always grouped together, especially in the movies, so lets go with it. In terms of loyalty to the book, the animated is the clear winner. I was very unimpressed by the movie version, even through I rather liked those actors, they just feel too comic, too blatant, and too flat as characters, they felt too gimmicky. While they are pretty much comic relief in the story, both characters are different in the books, more observant and generally more intelligent and easy to take seriously, while the Jackson version felt flanderized. But the animated version don’t do very much, while I take them all more seriously, they just hang out and occasionally say lines, so while I liked them better as loyal to the book, the Jackson version at least I could remember them, so I suppose it wins in terms of a movie.

Boromir is a clear Jackson win on both sides. In the animated version, he is kind of an angry barbarian who just hangs around yelling at things. He goes through the motions of the book character and does the same actions, but he doesn’t really have any personality. So if the Jackson character was only slightly decent, he would win. Thing is, he wasn’t slightly decent, he was flat out amazing. Sean Bean I think was the single best actor in the whole production, with the possible exception of Christopher Lee. And yes, I know that a lot of people in this cast were really good actors. But Sean Bean covered the role, he showed the elements of the character’s personality without making it seem forced or unnatural, and making an actual personality show through. When the animated Boromir dies, you kinda feel like “well good, that guy won’t be on stage anymore” while this one really came off as conflicted. Sean Bean really tried to make his character seem sympathetic rather than unlikable, like the scene where he is mock fighting with the hobbits and accidentally hurts one, leading to him to drop his sword going “sorry”. And any older sibling who ahs accidentally hurt a younger one in a game by mistake knows that feeling. And when talking to Aragon, he really seemed like he was trying to hid his anger and resentment and see past it, like the cut scene in the Fellowship when they see Gollum. Even when he assaults Frodo, you get the impression of a man who is growing desperate and angry, rather than a brute, and he very easily shows his grief after he comes to control himself. And his death was most likely, the best part of the series for me, both in how his self sacrifice was so hard fought and how he seemed to be desperately trying to redeem himself even through death, as well as his final talk with Aragon. Boormir’s death was tragic, and emotional, but extremely moving, and I think the best thing Jackson has ever done. I really want Sean Bean to be in more good movies, through nothing I’ve seen him in has been good. As you can imagine, Jackson wins on both counts

Gimli-Now, Gimli was one of my favorite characters in Lord of the Rings both because the Dwarves in the Hobbit were so cool (Thorin Oakenshield was amazing), but also because he seemed the most rounded character. Not flawless as Aragon or Gandalf, nor as well spoken as the hobbits, he was somewhat sarcastic and ill tempered, but he seemed very human. I liked his constant badgering of the elves, who were in fact a bunch of elitist, and his relationship with Legolas I found more interesting than any other in the story. And his character development was more subtle. Not given a point of view or even much of a focus, his relationship with the new people he sees is really much more interesting than various speeches, badassly impressive they may be. Thus, I was very mixed on the animated vs. movie version. The Jackson version (I’ve been calling it the movie version a lot haven’t I), is played by John Rhys Davies, who I actually think is a very good actor. The design for the character is ideal, opposed to the animated one, which looks like one of the Seven Dwarves on stilts, and if this was judged by the fist movie alone I’d give it a win for Jackson on both counts. But…the second movie hurt it. Gimli becomes nothing more than a comic relief, and one based mostly upon his height and bulk, which I felt was truly unfair. The character was more human, but never silly, and everything about him was exaggerated so much that he didn’t feel like a legitimate character. It felt like the stereotypical dwarves from D&D settings where they were just added in because dwarves are traditional. Hell, the dwarf from the D&D movie was like this guy, it was painful. So, and this pains me because John Davies is trying, oh so hard here, the animated version wins on both counts. Sigh. And does anybody else find it odd that a story’s whose moral is how small people are still strong in there own right, has all of these short jokes.

Legolas. Now, Legolas was a side character in the book who I liked, but not enamored with, his most interesting part in the story was his conversations with Aragorn or Gimli over the course of the story. And, this might be a good time to mention that I really dislike Olando Bloom as an actor, he has never impressed me with…anything. Unlike Johnny D, who can be annoying but if given a good role he can prove that he is a good actor, (Public Enemies), Bloom doesn’t impress me, he really kinda annoys me. He has no expression, can’t change his voice tone outside that painfully melodramatic drawl, and he seems to be entirely relying upon his looks. This is most likely his best film, which isn’t saying much all things considered. That being said, Legolas in the animated version, while he has more lines and actually talks to people and does stuff other than shooting things and staring into space. So in terms of loyalty to the book, animated for the win. But I will say, however much I dislike Bloom, he does look the part, and within the realm of action and looking dramatic, with the exception of the stupid shield stair case scene, it is better for the film as a whole. He didn’t hurt the film very much, unlike some other film’s he’s been it (oh gods Troy), and has some pretty cool fights, especially in the first movie.

Right, so finally Aragon. For those of you who saw the Nostalgia Critic Video, you can pretty much skip this, because I agree with him entirely. I don’t dislike Viggo Mortensen, who I think is a legitimate actor, but he isn’t impressive. His character feels flat and uninteresting, and he doesn’t have any real depth to him. The absurdly painful love triangle just came off as forced and contrived way to add character development, while I feel that the animated one came off as legitimately interesting. I liked that he didn’t have a beard and looked vaguely Native America, but his mannerism was far more impressive. He was well spoken, thoughtful, and felt less like Clint Eastwood as a ranger and more like the character from the book, a king and a warrior. Both counts animated

Finally Gandalf. And I have to admit, this one is really trickly, because both of them are pretty impressive. Both are impressive, wise, and intelligent, but Ian McKellen is just such a good actor, that Jackson on both counts.

Right, and since unlike the Nostalgia Critic, I’m not complete hack (am I trying to start a rivalry hear? Speaking of Nostalgia), so I’m going to go into the side characters from the first two movies as well

Now Elrond is interesting in that he doesn’t really have a major role in the books directly, but is an essential character, and the Jackson film took a pretty interesting take on it. In the animated one, he is sort of the standard way people imagine him, wise, benevolent and wise, but the Jackson version is a bit of a git. He is still intelligent and powerful, but he is cynical, jaded, and elitist, sort of presenting the dark side of the elves, pride and haughtiness, while still clearly being a good guy. And, through I might be bias cause I really like Hugo Weaving as an actor, I was really impressed by how this was handled. Unlike a lot of added character development in the trilogy, he felt actually really natural, the scene where he explains to Gandalf why he has no faith in humans is really well done, explaining both one of the main themes of the book very effectively and also shows a very interesting side of the character, embittered by mortals and his duty as the guardian of Middle Earth. This does stand in stark contrast in the book, but honestly, I think it is one of the few cases where that is an improvement, the character feels more real and fleshed out. He still is clearly a good guy, and does all the things he does in the book, but in this he is embittered and angry. So a win on both counts.

Arwin. Now this isn’t very far cause Arwin, played by Liz Tyler, isn’t in the animated version and has a lot of screen time in the Jackson version. So win on both counts for the animated version, because while she was a good character in the book, her character in the movie serves as an charismatic black hole, destroying everything around her. Cut her and thrown in Glorfindel instead, or whatever, just don’t have her. Animation wins.

Bilbo. Bilbo in the Animation is pretty good, he fills all of the roles, but Jackson one is played by Ian Holms, and that is pretty hard to top, both in his great body language and his expressions. But that being said, there were a few parts that the animation just felt more natural in the animation. The most important example is when Bilbo sees Frodo with the Ring, and over reacts. In the Jackson version, his face literally remade with computer graphics so that he seems demonic, while in the other animated version he simply has a very sinister expression. Its more subtle, less over the top and more human. However, as a whole, I think Jackson takes this one.

Théoden is the last hero character who I’ll focus on, because Galadriel is about the same in each version. The animated version, for once, seems to have a better actor, the voice actor who expresses more emotions, but Bernard Hill, unlike some of the bad actors (who ever played Faramir and Eomer I’m looking at you) he really tries, and that actually makes his character quite likable. And they added a lot of complexity to him, that, while it did feel a little forced, still made him feel more three dimensional. Animated for accuracy, Jackson for quality. Not counting the third movie of course, which annoyed me far more at Jackson.

Finally, the villains. And I’m including monsters as types.

First, the Nazgul/Ringwraiths. And I have to totally agree with the Nostalgia Critic on this one, the ones in the animation, while a little over the top at time are much scarier. Here I think, animation really helps, because the riders seem more surreal. The ones in the mover are just dudes in armor with cloaks, and there true forms are just funny looking ghosts, while the ones in the animation look, even in there hoods, bizarre and inhuman. And there true form, they look downright badass, tall armored warriors who’s very being seems shadowy, with faces that only emit red glows. These guys are how I picture the Nazgul, shadowy, regal, but shaded, opposed to blurry old men. Also, they have dialogue, and its really creepy “come back, come back, to Morder we will take you”. Animation wins, on both counts

Next the orcs. Now, this doesn’t seem like a far challenge, the orcs of the animated version were just a bunch of blurry monsters with swords who screamed a lot, while the orcs from the Jackson films were really cool looking, with extremely varied appearance. There were the cockroach like goblins of Moria, the various mutants of Mordor, and the tall militaristic Uruk-hai. The costumes and weapons were also quite good and developed, and the creatures were quick frankly, really cool looking. There is one thing that I think can be said for the animated version through, they are scarier. The orcs in Jackson films were big and toothy, but they weren’t scary, they were more just ugly cannon fodder. The ones from the animated film were out right disturbing, gibbering like mad beasts and swarming like strange maniacs. And the fighting was more brutal, when they killed people there was this sickening “thunk” noise, like a body being hacked to pieces brutally. But, Jackson’s version counters that with the character “Lurtz” the head Uruk-hai of Saurman who’s short life we see from beginning to end, and providing more personality and a face to the orcs. The guy wasn’t scary, but he was cool and interesting, and had two cool fight scenes, plus he dramatically killed Sean Bean, so Jackson still wins on both cakes

Trolls only appear briefly in the animated version, but that is actually closer to the book, with only a foot being seen before being stabbed. But the cave troll fight was really epic and cool, especially when the troll moans and wheezes right before he dies, making him somewhat sympathetic. So I liked its use.

Saruman I think is a trump for Jackson because….Its Christopher Lee. Is there anyway the cartoon could compete? No….no there isn’t. Jackson both points.

Finally, the one, the only, the Dark Lord Sauron. Now those of you from the Order of the Stick boards no doubt remember, I am a fan of this character. Because he is not only super powerful and commands massive armies, as far as evil villains go, he is actually pretty damn smart. Relying not upon brute force and massive armies, he prefers to destroy his enemies from within and subvert the ideals of others, corrupting them into evil. Single handedly destroying the greatest human kingdom on earth for example, simply be talking his way into there high command. Sauron was smart and ruthless as well as being pretty genre savvy. He does not confront the good guys head on if he can help it, and he tends to use subversive measures instead of direct assault. In fact, he pretty much has a counter for most of the good guys moves, except for the idea that they would send a pair for hobbits, neither of whom were warriors into the heart of his realm to destroy the most powerful artifact of his age. The good guys literally did something so stupid, he didn’t expect it. But the thing is, Sauron was scary. Why? Because we never met him. The characters reference him, often trying to avoid his name, and talk about him, but we never actually see him at any point in the books. He is instead a dark hostile force who’s very influence causes fear in even the strongest characters. We see other powerful evil forces, such as Saruman or the Balrog, which prove great physical challenges to the characters, but all of these are said to be but servants of the dark master. And unlike a lot of “Dark Lords”, who are defeated at the end and look silly (Death Lord from the High King/Book of Three), Sauron is never at any point really hurt. He has push backs, and defeats, like when losing the Seeing Stone to Aragorn, its rightful owner, but at no point do we see him in all of his power. He never fully reveals himself, and in fact, kinda fights the war with on hand behind his back, focusing on wearing down his enemies. This sort of “unseen horror” is in The Hobbit as well, where the “Necromancer” of Dol Guldor is described again and again as a power far greater than anything the good guys can muster, but he is intriguing because nothing is really explained about him. Even in LOTRS, Sauron is never fully explained, because simply trying to understand him would lead to the corruption of the mind. The only time Sauron makes an appearance is when his eye is on one of the group, his sheer thought and evil overwhelms them. Sauron is the ultimate evil that is always watching, but never bothering to expose itself. So in terms of how the character was handled, I think the animation did it better. Cause he didn’t do anything directly, the idea being if he did, the entire party would be dead. While in the movie, he didn’t seem to have a personality. In the books and even the animated movie, there are hints of his personality and mind, but they are only ominous hints, that lead to more questions than answers, rather than increasing the mystic of Sauron. While in the Jackson movie, the first one I could forgive him as a massive warrior, cause at that age, his ability to shape shift had been destroyed and he would be unable to hid his true form, plus he was desperate. But then, they made his “True form” a giant eyeball, on top of a tower. And that just seemed dopy. The thing about Sauron is, the Eye of Sauron is literally his eye, not the guy, he is said to have fingers by Gollum, who beheld him and was driven even more insane than normal. The nature of the Eye, like most of the character, is never explained, its nature is only hinted at. When the main villain is nothing more than a giant eyeball that looks around on a tower, it just feels, dopy and stupid, the character is just a big goofy monster. The Jackson version is too explicit, no subtly not detail. So, animation both times.

I’d say props/feeling of realism, but…Jackson version, hands down. No way can you compete with Weta Workshop.

Action scenes, now I admit, the brutal fighting and the constant suspense of the animated one gives it props, and the Jackson version does suffer from stupidly over the top fight scenes at times. But that being said, for the most part in the first two movies, falling into orc groups and shield surfing non withstanding, the fight scenes are fairly realistic. The armor and weapons aren’t totally absurd, the people aren’t doing stupidly super human thing, and most of the tactics make sense…most of them. And the final fight of the first movie was flawless, again, not too over the top, but exciting and enjoyable, with a character dying dramatically. So yeah, again, both go to Jackson

And I have them about tied when it comes to plot and faithfulness, each one cuts out/keeps in different elements and parts of the book so how much doesn’t really matter. In terms of edition, its hard. Jackson wins, but only barely, as he is a horrible editor, and we aren’t counting the third film, and because the animated one was stuck in developer hell and thus suffers from some severe cutting issues

So there you have it in a nut shell, my own take on Nostalgia Critic’s idea. I have the same conclusion, Jackson wins, just due to higher production value. But my reasoning is different so it isn’t a total rip off…right. Right? Guys?

From

EE

Kings was canceled

i just found out that kings has been canceled, one of the best TV shows in the modern day. Gah, its like Firefly, shows that seemed to do everythign right but it didn't work. For those who can, watch whats out so far, its truly fine television.
from
EE

First homebrew/briefly aligniment system

Apparently the place I went to for a short vacation has computer access, and so while I don’t have my various other works, I can write a short piece. I was lurking on Order of the Stick forums, and I noticed an interesting alignment discussion about a party who accidentally kills orc non combatants unknowingly in the middle of the raid. Now, most Alignment discussions tend to boil down to lots of mudthrowing and insults, but this one was actually, shockingly civil and maturely handled, the presence of Tempus Fanatic, Fixer, and hamishspence most likely was a major factor in that, cause they are awesome. But the debate quickly diverted onto the idea of how to properly handle generally evil races like orcs and non combatants. The Book of Exalted Deeds says that killing noncombatants is clearly evil unless they are posing a direct threat, like actively attacking you, and says that a good adventurers should try their best to remake the society after destroying it in a good image. A daunting prospect, but hey, good is never easy. Anyways, the question arose of how many orcs within a society would be evil, and the consequences of judging creatures based upon their alignment. Now, D&D makes it clear that you can’t kill a creature based upon its Aligniment, being evil isn’t a crime, its when you’re evil and doing something hurtful that its bad. For example, the Viking raiders are most likely evil, but that doesn’t justify just going into their homes and murdering the whole lot, same with various corrupt businessmen. You can kill or hurt them to prevent them from hurting others, but only if they are actively doing something evil. Killing a band of orcs who are living in there own land hunting is far different from say, killing a band of orcish raiders, even if both are evil. Now, within D&D, aligniments are presented within different context, such as “Usually Chaotic Evil” means that there is still a sizable non CE population within the creature’s demographic, opposed to “Always Chaotic Evil” which means something about the race of creatures themselves makes them inclined to evil, like demons or devils. In 2nd edition, evil races, like drow or orcs (opposed to evil creatures, like demons or devils) were still almost entirely evil, with very rare exceptions. That’s why Drizzt in R.A. Salvator’s books seems like one of the rare exceptions, which seems odd when in “modern” Forgotten Realms, IE, 3.5, non evil drown are quite common, cause Drizzt was invented earlier. However in 3E, a greater distinction was made. Some races are Often evil, some are usually evil, and some are always evil ect. Basically, I’ve changed this within my games, to cover more ground, but the system itself is sound. So I suppose, my first homebrew, sorry if it is unimpressive.
Basically, when it comes to determining a creature’s alignment, and how much of the population follows the conventional one, this is how I do it. I’m using Chaotic evil as the example for this case
1) Frequently Chaotic Evil. The creature/group has no physical/magical ties towards the evil alignment and the culture isn’t especially disposed to cruelty or brutality, they do have cultural predisposition to evil. About 40% of the group is evil, with the rest of the alignments being greatly mixed. For example, the British Army in the America revolution, would frequently be Lawful Evil, as many acts were tolerated at the time that aren’t today (slavery, mistreating women, cruelty towards non whites, killing natives) not to mention various evil acts against the Americans (I know most of those were exaggerated, Boston Massacre being the most famous example, but there were some) so the army would be generally Lawful Evil (lawful because well, the British Army). But there was plenty of room for other moral views within the ranks, many good or neutral. Its just the most common percent, but not the majority of the population. A chaotic evil example might be, but I’m not an expert on the culture, the Gaelic tribes before the Romans took over, while the warriors would lead brutal raids, and the world was unlawful, the civilians were pretty content to stay home and try to keep the family alive (I don’t know if they had slavery or evil customs like sacrifice).
2) Commonly chaotic evil. The race is still not magically inclined to evil, but the culture is very much given to evil, but it isn’t so prevalent that every single member would be evil. Maybe 50-60% of the population is a single alignment, with the rest being a mix of moralities and ethics. For example, I’d say Ancient Rome, at least before the time of Marius and Sculla, would be commonly Lawful evil. Slavery was legal, women were treated badly, conquered people’s were oppressed and the roman’s were infamously brutal when they took over an area (the sack of Carthage for example, through many Romans objected to this). However, while the slave owners and many of the solders would be evil, along with many of the average citizens but, many people were just content to be left alone to do there own thing. Even some ethical people who wanted to reform the system, most likely after reading a bit too much Greek poetry, but they would be few and far between among the Romans at least. But still, people who try to help the poor existed, as well as those who worked for the betterment of the common man. A Chaotic Evil example might be the Vikings, who’s raiders and slavers were very cruel (through not total monsters), but the people at home and the non combatants would be more focused on just bettering there lives.
3) Often Chaotic Evil. The population worships an evil Deity, and has strong cultural connections to evil, but they aren’t supernaturally compelled to do evil, nor is there society rigid enough that evil is forced upon them. The About 70% percent of the population. Spanish conquerors of America would be a good example of often Neutral Evil, as they are actively engaged in oppression, rape and genocide, through not every single one was actively engaged or even supported the regime, they certainly weren’t complaining.
4) Usually chaotic evil. The society is generally evil by nature, actively worshipping an evil god, involved as a race in evil schemes, or has customs/practices that make everyone involved evil. While the race isn’t magically compelled to be evil, and a child stolen from that culture and raised on its own is no more inclined to be evil than any other race, and small communities can exist who follow a different ethical code, as well as those within the main society who’s ethics different from the rest. 85% of the race would be this alignment. Drow in D&D are the prime example, not inherently evil, but strongly culturally evil, Aztecs and Nazi Germany might be real life examples of always Neutral Evil.
5) Always Chaotic evil. This group has some sort of connection, of a supernatural nature to evil, which compels them towards evil inherently. There very nature is made up as evil, and thus, unlike all of the other examples, it is more ok to assume evil first (through murder is still murder). 99.5% of this race is Chaotic Evil, and that tiny amount left is mostly some other form of evil or neutral. Now, while they are supernaturally inclided towards evil, it isn’t totally irredeemable. No real life examples obviously, but a D&D example would be the Dragonspawn of Tiamant, or Lichs/Vampires, creatures who’s nature is evil, and often turn towards evil, but still have the possibility of free will. While there very nature is abhorrent, there is a absurdly remote chance of redemption. Within my games, it pretty much assumed that these guys are evil, thus the murder rules are a little more hazy, but that really depends how these creatures are played in your games. And if one of them does do something to demonstrate that he is the exception then murder is still evil. Dragons are lumped into this category, but that is a rule that even core D&D doesn’t seem to take seriously, so I always put them in the “Usually” or “Often” evil category.
6) Always Chaotic Evil/Evil Subtype- These creatures are evil. There very nature is evil. They are spawned out of pure evil. Evil is inherent in their very existence, they are beings who’s mere existence is an evil action. Simply thinking about good deeds goes against there very nature, violates the very purpose of their existence, threatens the very nature of their being. These creatures, quite simply, have no souls, and are abominations who quite simply…must be purged. Demons, Devils, Daomons, and other such beings are literally, the literal manifestation of evil within the universe, who’s very existence is a violation of all that is good and holy about the world, and make up the realms of Hell, the Abyss and other absurdly evil planes. As of such, these beings are not protected by the same rules as other evil beings. Killing them is always justified, simply because there existence is an evil act. Torturing them for information, such as pouring holy water on them til they talk, is permissibly as is using other wise “Dishonorable” methods, like special poisons or mind control (the latter is a separate alignment issue). The only rule is that the good person in question should not torture them for his own personal enjoyment, simply to get the job done, and must be sure it is in fact a fiend. However, there existence is an abomination, so anything goes. There are two exceptions to this rule, however slight. One is that special spells/items exist that can change the alignment of a being, now matter what it is, and thus force it to be good. However, the creature is still evil, just acting against its will, but even so, it will detect as good, so then different story. The final exception to this rule is, that, by the rules of the system they are 100% evil, but sometimes the nature of the universe has glitches, and a non Chaotic evil one might appear, but these absurdly rare creatures make up less than .1 percent of the population, and most of those would be some other form of evil. However these absurdly rare examples are fluxes, mistakes, freaks within the system, who somehow possess free will. Should a paladin learn of the creatures special existence, then he is obligated to treat the creature like any other good being, but killing such a being unknowingly is not an evil act, cause it is a flux in the system, and even if the creature is good, its existence is still evil.
7) Finally, Evil Subtype, without Always evil Alignment. These creatures are magically drawn to be evil, but are only slightly more likely to be evil than an normal person in that category. These creatures are normally half Fiends of some sort.
So first homebrew yeah. Insert self mocking statement here
From
EE

An Idiot in the Wasteland

Warty Goblin plays Fallout, with no earthly notion what he's doing.
Day 1.

I wanted to get Fallout 3, I really did. First I went to Wal-mart, which I never do, and they didn’t have it. Neither did Gamestop or Best Buy, so I settled for a boxed set of Fallout, Fallout 2 and Fallout Tactics. It was one of those very, very budget releases, one disc, no manual, but hey, three games for twenty bucks? Sign me up.

So I installed them all, and fired up Fallout. My immediate impression was ‘this game has the coolest opening video of all time.’ Then I went, made myself a custom character focusing on Intelligence, Agility, Perception with a side of Charisma, and specializing in Energy Weapons, First Aid, and something else. These choices where based on knowing that talking to people is good, Intelligence has something to do with skills, and lasers are cool. There was another, somewhat less awesome video telling me I needed to go get some sort of water purifier, a first person cutscene that really, really made me wish I was playing Fallout 3, and then boom, I’m in the game.

And I’m in a little underground cave. Populated by rats. My first thought was ‘this color palate makes Gears of War look like a rainbow.’ Second thought, ‘rats? Really? A game often hailed as the pinnacle of western RPGs starts in a dungeon with rats? Usually you at least get to wander around the starting town for a few minutes before the rat cave.’ Needless to say, this did not blow me out of the water.

Nevertheless, only mildly daunted, I wander out of the dungeon, past the rats, and on to some grayer rock that transports me to a very large world map. I click around on it for a while, and watch a little green arrow trail a red line around. Eventually it got where I clicked. Nothing happened. I clicked the arrow, there was a very brief loading screen as my computer laughed at the puny amount of data the game was throwing at it, and then I was standing in the middle of a mountainous region. I click to walk around for a while, but there’s nothing. Absolutely nothing.

I suppose this is a realistic representation of a post nuclear world, but it hella boring. A gutsy statement from a design point of view, but rather short. Like this sentence.

After some reflection, I decide there has to more to the game that some brown mountains. Pressing the ‘map’ button doesn’t do anything useful, like take me back to that overland map that allows me to travel. Using my keen gaming senses, I decide that clearly I need to find an exit point, but there’s really not anything obvious around. There are two of those shaded regions on the sides of the screen, but the curser turns to a red X whenever I click on one, which I take to mean I can’t walk there. At this point I’m rather tired of completely lifeless brown, and so do the only logical thing, I hit escape, and quit the game.

Tomorrow, I play Fallout having perused the manual.

Blood the last vampire expectations

 

                                                           

My expectations for the Blood Movie

Basically, I cannot publish the articles I already have written for a week due to computer issues, so for now I just wanted to write something easy before I go away for a week.  So yeah, Blood, cause I saw a trailer for it.  For those who don’t know, and I imagine considering how this movie isn’t exactly mainstream by any standard, for somewhat good reason.  Basically this is a remake of an animated movie of the same name.  Now the film itself was actually pretty unremarkable, basically following a Japanese school girl massacre a bunch of Demon vampire things with a katana…actually that was pretty much it, there literally was next to no plot.  It had a few things going for it, very well animated, cool fight scenes, fairly realistic gore without getting outright excessive, and at least tried to be realistic in a few scenes, my favorite being when the characters sword turns out to be a replica and is thus, totally useless.  But it was forgettable and would have been nothing more than a sorta pulp hack and slash movie, enjoyable but nothing big, but it was turned into a shockingly good Anime series called Blood Plus, which basically took the basic theory of the movie and added plot, and by plot, I mean 51 episodes of extremely complex storyline.  Now I watched the first 20 or so, before getting distracted by other thigns, but I did admire them for adding in a lot of storyline where there really wasn’t any before.  So since the new movie is life action and based after the actual film Blood Last Vampire, directed by the same dude who did Hero and House of Flying Daggers.  So basically, just taking the original movie and adding in more fight scenes is my guess.  Through basically, here I think, if they add any form of plot, it would be an improvement, so we finally have an action movie that I’m willing to endorse….i might not bother to see it but hey

From

EE

No country for old men

ah stranger danger

Ok, when I was reviewing Claymore, my problem was my total lack of emotion that I felt from the series as a whole; it was good, just not profound. So I figured, for the summer I’d better review something that got a real emotional response out of me, and that tends to happen if a movie is really popular but isn’t really good (it being good requires me to like it, clichéd egomaniacs joke there). So, as the title indicates, I’m going to be attacking one of the most popular films of the last few years, “No Country for Old Men”. No Country for Old Men, a 2007 film made by the Cohen brothers, it guys who made Fargo.

The movie takes place in Texas where a hunter/cowboy person named Llewelyn Moss who comes across a botched drug deal, and finds two millions dollars. However, the mafia finds out who he is and send a man named Chigurh to kill him, (yes it’s a play off sugar), who is the poster boy for disturbing serial killers, but nobody seems to be able to catch on. Chigurh tracks Moss while mowing down all of the Mexican gangsters who get in his way with a shot gun that has a silencer on it (did I mention this movie takes place in 1980), eventually fighting moss with shot guns in the middle of a city, where nobody seems to notice. And then another operative shows up to make a deal with moss, and then Chigurh some how he knows where he lives and kills him and…ok no this stuff is absurd. The plot is just nonsensical violence, broken up by long scenes of people staring at things. But the plot is nothing more than a series of fights and Chigurh implausibly avoiding getting caught.

Now the film is cinematically impressive, and I think that is the main reason why this was so well accepted. If you look at it from a fully cinematic viewpoint, this thing will blow your mind, and most of the praise for this film comes, justifiably, from the extremely high quality of the film. The landscape shots are mind-blowing, and the editing ins profound, the props look and feel realistic in the characters hands, and the audio effects are superb, giving the effect that you are actually at these locations feeling what the characters feel. In fact, it reminded me of “The Shining”, in the sense that the tension and the emotions comes from the feeling that you are present at the location. And it has that same great quality of the tension being in the atmosphere of the scene, rather than any particular event, like the first coin toss scene in the film, all of the emotion is in what will happen next, and the expectations and eventually defying the viewers expectations. They both also have a talent for generating a lot of fear and suspense in fairly normal situations, without a climax (shut up Freud), and still be horrifying. Like the scene in “The Shining” where the boy I standing by the forbidden hotel room and is considering opening it but doesn’t? Even when the boy eventually chooses the anti climatic solution and doesn’t open the door, the tension is still there, and the scene is still far more suspenseful than any actual monster hunt, and that is because it taps into some very inner primal fears. Very few American movie goings have actually been chased by a monster or been chased by a psychotic hit man, but many of us know the primal fear of what is on the other side of a creepy door into the scary room, or been alone in a passage way when you suddenly feel a sense of fear, or have run into a really creepy guy at work. When the movie choices showing suspense in simplicity, it is brilliant. However, the effect is ruined by the sheer absurdity of the evens that occur. Does nobody in this city know how to use a phone, when you see a shotgun fight in a hotel room, police do something about it. It wastes its best quality in its absurdity, and just becomes a well-made action movie. One thing the movie does deserve massive credit for is that it has a total lack of background music. None, the entire movie goes without any background music at all, which gives it massive kudo points in the grand scheme of things. Now, I’m not against background music as an idea, and I think it can be used to great affect (The Shining again). But I like movies experimenting with new things, and in terms of drama, I think the lack of background music worked almost entirely in this movie. And lets be honest, technically speaking, this is nothing short of a masterpiece. However, that doesn’t excuse the actual biggest fault of the movie, and that’s well…the story.

The film, based upon a book of the same name, is a film trying to be a deconstruction of the typical western, as well as the clichéd Hollywood format, by showing that life isn’t fair and evil triumphs over good. Now, I think that is a good message, it is easy to get disgusted with he sappy, corny, and sickenly clichéd happy endings that always seem to come out in Hollywood movies. Now I don’t object to happy endings, but I do get sick with the extremely implausible happy endings, where everything works out in an utterly implausible manner (Disney is particularly guilty of this). One of my top dislikes of films that are painfully optimistic or painfully idealistic (I don’t mind idealism, but it has to be contrasted with reality for me to take it seriously, Pan’s Labyrinth did this very well) without a sense of realism. Sappy, overly sweet endings in particular are a personal pet hatred of mine (again, Slumdog pulled this off well by making the characters earn their happy ending), cause its sappy, cliché, and horribly false. However, and I’m sure you can see what I’m building up to, some films go too far in the other direction, in trying to show how dark, unfair, and unjust the world is, they make everything so absurdly horrible and life so dismal that it just comes off as absurd, cause people realize that it isn’t accurate. Anything by Frank Miller (Sin City, I’m looking at you), suffers from this, as well as racism and crappy writing, because the violence, sex, drugs and cursing is so gratuitous and over the top, that it is just as unrealistic as a description of the Native Americans and English settles living happy idealistic lives. The trap that film makers fall into, and No Country for Old Men is a painful example of this, is that it is so absurdly dark and cynical, that its message of “this is the harsh reality” comes off as just silly rather than moving, most likely because the directors are desperate to show off the unfair nature of the world they just go straight into the realm of impossibility. Cynical works can be effective, if they feel like they could actually happen, “Song of Ice and Fire” is a good example of this cause dark as the world may be, its feels like a retelling of Historical England, which was pretty dark. But the most cynical, dark and idealistically shattering thing I’ve ever seen was in a work that contained no blood, no cursing, no fighting and no sex. The English TV show, “Yes Minister” and its sequel Series “Yes Prime Minister” depict a far darker reality than the over the top violence of “No Country for Old Men”. Both shows are basically dramas about how politics actually work in England, with the weak willed but idealistic minister Hacker butting heads with the cynical and corrupt secretary Sir Humphrey. Within the show, many good ideas and competent solutions to the nations various problems are proposed, but are shot down, delayed, or tainted by the inefficient, back biting, and corrupt British Government (this corrupt isn’t limited to Britain, France and the US are shown quite negatively as well). The show very accurately shows why blind idealism doesn’t work so well in the real world, and it does this so effectively cause it feels real. The reason why it is so chilling is because you know, that to an extent, the politics of the show are real, and the way politics works is real. The cynicism, the corruption, the incompetence and the nepotism all take place in our own government; the show just displays how it works. “No Country for Old Men” makes the claim it isn’t a typical Hollywood movie, but in a sense it is, the plot armor is instead protecting the villain instead of the hero. Chigurh by rights should have been killed or caught long before the ending. I mean, in the opening he kills a cop with a pair of hand-cuffs, and a random man on the street, and considering his name and appearance, not to mention the body trail he leaves behind, he shouldn’t be that hard to track. I mean, now inept to the police have to be to not notice two shot gun fights in the middle of a city and a motel? And then he comes backs to the motel, and murders another man; does anybody go outside their houses in this town? Not to mention his seeming omnipotence, always knowing where his enemy is, such as the second assassin who appears with a lot of build up, and is then quickly killed off (just like how Halloran is killed off in the Shinning after a massive build up, which I thought was great), but Chigurh somehow both knows he is in town, and where he is staying. Not to mention how a guy with a shotgun fighting men with machineguns never seems to get hit by any bullets.

Now people mention that he is like some kind of unstoppable force or deity, but the thing is, it feels cheap. The man is a hired hit man by a gang sent to retrieve money, that man being the symbolic incarnation of fate just seems petty. And in the film he gets called out for being a human being near the end. So the whole angle of painting him as some sort of angle of Death just doesn’t feel right, he is clearly a human and clearly a sociopath, not some person who ought to maintain judgment over life and death. And its not even random chance, cause despite his flipping a coin, he is the one who chooses who has to get that choice. And the whole concept of him being some sort of force of nature falls flat when he is killing Mexican gangsters for cash. The whole concepts has been done before and done better. Take the classic Swedish film “Seventh Seal”, which his about the man who plays chess with death. He is also running away from an unstoppably dark antagonist who is the metaphorical representation of death and inevitability. However, it has a context, the knight has played chess with death and is targeted for death, and it takes place during the time of the Black Death. And there is this whole theme about fate vs. faith vs. despair, so it’s all part of the story. In “No Country for Old Men”, the whole “unbeatably avatar of death” angle feels out of place, cause it has no real part of the story. The protagonist is marked for death but apart from materialistic money dealings…um, why? Why is fate against this guy, he hasn’t really done anything that seems to justify the fates aligning against him, and it doesn’t seem to mesh well with the whole story, cause it doesn’t relate.

In short, while the movie is impressive, it ruins all of its best moments just by not being well written. The best parts of the movie are I admit, but, there are only a few scenes where both the technological genius combines with actual good writing. The best example of course, are at the end, and are both massive spoilers, even more so than everything else I’ve said, so if you ever plan of watching the movie and care about these sort of things, then stop reading now, leave the blog alone, then come back when you finished. For you people, my final words are going to be “It isn’t at all worth the hype, and suffers from some truly painful writing, but is certainly worth watching simply for the quality of the film itself alone. I wouldn’t put it on any “best movies list”, but it does deserve some of its praise for the technical achievements, and all of the actors, but in the end, just watch Fargo”

For those of you who’ve seen it, or don’t care about spoilers, here are the two scenes that I think actually deserve praise. The most shocking of course is that the main character dies…off screen. The last scene we see him in is seeing the Mexican Gangsters (opposed to Chigurh) coming to his door and his preparing himself for a fight. Then we cut away, and when we cut back Chigurh finds Moss’ corpse surrounded by dead gangsters, and then moves on. Basically, its like the film just skipped over the massive fight where the main character brings down like half the gang before being shot and mortally wounded, having a brief flashback to his wife or something, then with his last dying strength unleashing his full fury upon the remaining gangsters and dies looking up at the sky taking about yada yada yada we’ve all been here before. It’s a standard cliché in action movie, and the fact that the movie actually skipped it actually legitimately shocked me. Up until now, while there were a few “oh, didn’t see that coming” moments, this was the only time I actually was pretty shocked, cause we’ve grown to expect the main character dying in a final blaze of shotgun cocking (shut up Freud) glory, that the final 20 mins of the film being nothing but a long shooting happy moment is kinda taken for granted, so I will give the film points for simply skipping over all of that and spending the final 20 mins of the film doing something a bit more plot related, not to mention how much that shocked the audience. It also kinda makes a point on how the final explosive final, isn’t actually that needed in a film, by not showing it, the entire concept is kinda made to look silly and unneeded, so kudos to the film for spending its ending on something more time worthy. And in that, we get the second good part of the film, the final 20 mins. Now these aren’t actually good, just unlike the rest of the film, something is keeping your attention apart from the film quality and the actors, and is the first time Chigurh gets any real humanization in his confrontation with the wife where somebody finally calls him out for being a psycho. And then getting hit by a car, which is the only time the world actually seems remotely unfair (the other driver doesn’t seem eager to talk to him through, normally the driver is worried bout the whole insurance angle), and the symbolism made sense, cross roads being the crossroads of life ect ect. But these too scenes don’t make up for the movie as a whole. In the end…wait I already told you what I thought. Oh fine. Worth watching, but shockingly forgettable.

From
EE

evil PCs

Come on i could totally see it

Evil PCs

Right, since I Still haven’t gotten my computer back, and editing isn’t done, lets talk about of the more misunderstood issues of D&D, evil PCs, or evil parties. Now, almost all of the official D&D material condemn the very idea of evil PCs, and are strongly against the very idea of it. 4^th edition pretty much out right forbids it (insert one of my many criticism of 4E here), and while none of the other editions go that far, they are all strongly opposed to the idea. Now, this prejudice has two basic arguments behind it, and both of them are fairly justified. The first one is that people don’t know how to play evil. And, while I think this is a fallacy, it has some basic logic behind it. I know that the first evil characters in my games simply acted psychotic, randomly killing NPCs, kidnapping women at the various inns, and randomly betraying the main party. You know, basically Belkar in Order of the Stick, but not as a comedic character. And when you get an party of Evil PCs, you get a band of psychotic armed warriors pillaging, raping and murdering everything that gets in there path…a bit like General Santa Anna actually, but less classy (I’d say Andrew Jackson in Florida, but I make fun of him a lot, and his ghost is eventually going to beat me to a pulp). People just play evil with wild abandon and go crazy, playing evil people so ridiculously over the top that they resemble villains from children’s cartoons (I’d reference Captain Planet, but then it would seem like I’m ripping off Yahtzee….wait) rather than legitimately evil people. Now as I said, this is generally logical, but I still think it is a fallacy that evil parties don’t work because they inevitable give way to backstabbing and infighting. Now I think that evil parties have that option open to them, but if you think about it, psychotic evil people aren’t actually good representation of evil. A truly evil person would pretend to be good and use that to take power. I mean, one of my few complaints about the otherwise amazing Baldur’s Gate series is that evil characters will leave your party if your group’s reputation got to high. It didn’t make sense, why would evil people object to getting discount prices and being declared heroes by the common people. But more upon this later.

The second main argument against evil parties is that the game is designed for heroic fantasy, with good guys defeating the forces of evil and helping people across the world. Considering the sheer depths of evil that exist within the game, demons, devils, evil gods, and the depravity that they can steep to, it is really hard to sympathize with them, and the feeling that good guys should go out and put them down is natural. And I’m not saying that the truly evil creatures should be removed, on the contrary, I like how the supernatural forms of evil are utterly inhuman, because it provides some cool contrasts to humanity, people get use to the truly vile evil, that they ignore the more “tone down” evil, the evil of normal men and women. Against the truly evil creatures, the idea of supporting evil characters seems…revolting and justifiable so. Playing a servant of hell who is determined to destroy all humanity and devote of goodness isn’t really that cool, its…icky. I mean, when ever I played the villain in very early parties, I just felt, well, ill trying to be evil. Murdering innocents for fun, hurting people for its own sake, and destroying the forces of good, its hard to feel good with yourself. Maybe this is just me, but I just found the “typical” evil, approach, IE fighting against good the way good fights against evil, just sickening. Destroying a village of innocents, desecrating a temple to a good god, slaying good heroes, it didn’t make me feel cool or empowered it made me feel…wrong. But that was the only way to play evil characters right, because evil has to be in opposition to good. So the idea of playing evil is not only dysfunctional, its disturbing right?

It wasn’t until later that I realized it is very narrow minded to a simply assume that evil was as polite and understanding to manifest just as open attackers of all things good and decent. Because, if you haven’t noticed by my articles on the subject, being good is tough. There is a pretty high standard set, especially if you consider real life morality and bring the alignments of historical figures/cultures into play, good is a pretty high standard, one which people can slip easily. A man can be evil for assassinating political rivals, killing civilians in time of war, torturing terrorists for information (hey, no subtly political jab there…nope). So, while the extreme and truly dark evil still exists in D&D, the more “human” way of playing evil characters exist. I’ve always been a fan of flawed characters, or villain protagonists, as long as it is clear that the characters are in fact flawed, and not being glorified. Within the elements of Role playing game, playing flawed and not perfect characters is something that I think is perfectly workable. Playing as a roman legionnaire, a Viking warrior, Spanish conqueror, or a pirate are all interesting concepts, but most of those are evil because they are products of their culture. But they can still have honor, friends, loved ones, and a sense of duty.

Even with more openly evil/amoral PCs, there is nothing that keeps the group from being friendly with each other, or even having some ethics. Darken (webcomic) is a very good example of this. Even if the character are all tragic heroes, a sense of comradely and personal loyalty. Hell, if you think about it, most real life mercenaries were (and are) pretty dark folk, but they get along with each other, Evil Adventures are basically just bandits with shiny stuff. Evil characters aren’t by default psychopaths and won’t pathologically murder each other, through the option to do is often what keeps DMs from encouraging it. Here is the thing through, the reason why people play evil immaturely is that it is the only way we are told evil functions. In a moral system as strict as D&D, evil is a very broad category, but D&D always shows evil as nothing more than psychopathic. Now I’m not saying that Evil needs to be show more positively, it is evil for a reason, but I do feel like the complexity of evil needs to be shown. It isn’t just for the serial killers and sociopaths, it is where all of the fallen dwell, from those who are simply not particularly ethical, such as dubious sellswords, to misguided warriors, to simply the ignorant. Nobody in real life is wholly evil.

From

EE