Sunday, December 30, 2012

"So this is the Hobbit. "


Bilbo Baggins: You can promise that I will come back?
Gandalf: No. And if you do, you will not be the same.
The Hobbit
The great discussion among fans regarding The Lord of the Rings is whether or not Jackson's omissions from the original text for the movies are justified.  For The Hobbit, it's the other way around - the debate is going to revolve around the parts that were either extended or outright invented solely for the movie. 

For example, a lot of the narrative deals with the villainous Azog, leader of the goblin hordes, who is eager for revenge on Thorin Oakenshield, the leader of the dwarf band, for cutting off his left hand in battle.

In the book? Azog gets one line from Gandalf:
"Your grandfather Thror was killed, you remember, in the mines of Moria by Azog the Goblin."
Similarly, Gandalf's fellow wizard Radagast the Brown, played in the movie by Sylvester McCoy of Doctor Who fame, also gets one line in the book - well, really more of a reference than a line:
"I am a wizard," continued Gandalf. "I have heard of you, if you  have not heard of me; but perhaps you have heard of my good cousin Radagast who lives near the Southern borders of Mirkwood?"
It's a big jump from that single reference to the somewhat slapstick character in the movie who occupies ten or fifteen minutes of screen time.*


And that's where the problem comes in. It's been generally expected that in order to extend The Hobbit to the same length as the Lord of the Rings trilogy, there was going to be some expansion of certain parts of the novel.  But there's a difference between expansion and creation, and a lot of what I saw in the three hours on screen was outright invention.  Sadly, in that act of invention we are faced with a very simple and obvious truth: the people doing the inventing are not J. R. R. Tolkien.

The unfortunate result is that the new scenes don't ring true against the rest of the narrative. The section with Radagast was an interesting extrapolation, but there was a lack of dignity to the character that didn't seem right to me.


 A council of war takes place between Elrond, Galadriel, Gandalf and Saruman at Rivendell - again, created from whole cloth for the movie version - which was completely off key, at least to my experienced ear.  Not badly written, but not the right style, not for Tolkien. One of the hallmarks of Tolkien's heroes is their directness and honesty, and to hear Gandalf and Galadriel having a concealed magical conversation was in direct contrast to the style of the book.

Finally, the climax of the movie involves a bonding moment between Bilbo and Thorin, where Bilbo rescues Thorin from death at the hands of goblins, thereby finally establishing Bilbo's value to the quest and to Thorin personally.  Which is great, except it's another manufactured moment - in this case, to give the movie a climax that Tolkien didn't write for the end of Chapter Six of his book.  Which takes us to page 112 of my 285 page paperback copy, so presumably there's some further creative moments to come in the next two films.
 - Sid

* Radagast is discussed at greater length in the appendices to The Return of the King, but I guarantee there's nothing there about caked white streaks of bird guano in his beard and a sledge pulled by a trained team of Rhosgobel rabbits. 
 

Tuesday, December 25, 2012

The Infinite Oswin?


It’s smaller on the outside.
Clara Oswin Oswald, Doctor Who: The Snowmen  
Good evening. I'm a lizard woman from the dawn of time, and this is my wife.
Madame Vastra, Doctor Who: The Snowmen
This year's Doctor Who Christmas Special, The Snowmen, was all about snow, and, like snow, it was elaborately structured, full of little gaps, and, well, flaky.

It's not all bad, there's a lot of clever bits - it's the sort of brilliant dialogue and very good acting that makes Doctor Who a pleasure to watch in spite of the occasional dodgy plotline.  Sadly, this is one of those dodgy-plotline episodes, with one too many odd coincidences and forced plot advancements.

This episode marked the arrival of Jenna-Louise Coleman, the widely promoted new companion for the Doctor, although we'd sort of already seen her in Asylum Of The Daleks back in September where she first appeared as Oswin Oswald the soufflé-baking Dalek, who didn't survive the episode. In The Snowmen, she also plays an Oswin, Clara Oswin Oswald in this case.

Ms. Coleman's Oswin, in both incarnations, is plucky and perky, clever and cute - which is pretty much the standard shopping list for the Doctor's companions since they rebooted the series.  Unfortunately, at the end of The Snowmen, she's also dead.


Two Oswins down and counting, with a third Oswin on deck at the end of the special.  My god, imagine if that's all the Doctor does this season, travel from place to place and from time to time, having adventures with different iterations of Oswin who always die at the end!!  (Perhaps not as much fun as it sounds.)

I realize that on Doctor Who, being dead isn't a barrier to quiet enjoyment, but didn't we just spend the last couple of years killing off Rory and/or Amy every ten minutes?  Let's just hope that the next Oswin manages to get through more than a single episode.


Regardless, I would be remiss if I failed to recognize the introduction of what may well be the first married human-lizard lesbian couple on television. (I have to wonder where they found a member of the clergy in Victorian England who was willing to conduct the ceremony.  On the other hand, they do have access to a time machine.)  However, this may be premature. If anyone in the readership is aware of another married human-lizard lesbian couple on television, please do speak up. After all, I didn't watch any of the V reboot, who knows what they got up to.
 - Sid
 


I know, some people decorate the tree.



Has everyone had a happy holiday season?  Personally, I spent most of the night before Christmas trying to find a way to get my brain back into my head.

Perhaps this requires some explanation...

Having somewhat unexpectedly finished off Arkham Asylum, I thought it might be fun to revisit Fallout New Vegas (the sequel to Fallout 3) with the aid of some downloadable content, or DLC as it is more commonly known.  Personally, I think that DLC is one of the best innovations in gaming for quite a while, allowing game developers to easily add value to a game purchase over time without having to develop a whole new game engine - or having to invest in packaging and disk burning, for that matter.

I purchased two additional modules for FNV and started out with Old World Blues, a visit to the Think Tank at Big Mountain, a hidden scientific base originally dedicated to pure research which later became involved in weapons development as part of the war against Communism.

After the transition from New Vegas, I awakened in the main dome only to discover that while I was asleep, the disembodied brains making up the Think Tank had shared the wealth by removing my brain as well.  Even worse, when they weren't paying attention, one-time Think Tank member Doctor Mobius had somehow stolen my brain and taken it to his dome in the Forbidden Zone.

I eventually fulfilled the main quest for the module by defeating the evil Doctor Mobius and his robot scorpions - well, to be fair, the overly confused and not terribly malicious Doctor Mobius - after which he generously offered to let me ask my brain if it wanted to be reunited with its body.


Of course, my brain wasn't interested, and I was required to find a way to convince my wayward cerebellum to return to its home in my cranium.  Which might not have been too bad until I discovered an unexpected glitch in the game which stuck my brain in a loop of reminiscences about shared memories (if one can share memories with their own brain...anyway, you get the idea.)

But let me tell you, whatever the challenges of overcoming my brain's distaste for life in my body might have been, they were nothing compared to the challenges of getting the damn game to function properly, a challenge made even more difficult due to the need to reboot the computer every time the program started to loop.

The down side of the sort of freedom offered by an open world game like Fallout is that it's impossible for game developers to anticipate every possible configuration that a player might create, and as such it's not uncommon for bugs in the software to prevent players from accessing certain portions of the game.  Generally, there's only one solution:  reload a previous save of the game and change as many parameters as possible going into the nonfunctional area.


So - back out into the crater containing Big Mountain to kill some more of my fellow Lobotomites (I wasn't the only visitor to be relieved of their grey matter) until I leveled up and felt that I could take another shot at the buggy brain conversation. To help load the dice, I did everything I could to alter the parameters before initiating the conversation with my brain: dropped some weapons, loaded some Intelligence and Persuasion modifiers, and even stood in a different place in the dome.

And then, after all that, although I managed to get past the problem and my brain finally agreed to rejoin its body, I unwittingly went through the wrong exit at the end of the game and launched the "He decided not to restore his brain" conclusion.  At which point I wrote the whole thing off as a lesson in humility, and left my brain in a bottle.  And you know what?  There were no problems starting the next module without a brain.  This may well be some kind of larger editorial comment on computer games - or at least on the players.
 - Sid

Wednesday, December 19, 2012

A cracking gift!



Today at work my department had its seasonal potluck luncheon and Secret Santa gift exchange, and I have to say that it's a pleasure to work with people who don't fool around when it comes to gift selection.  Someone showed the remarkable good judgement required to get me a Wallace and Gromit Liquid Clock 7000, a toy so dangerous to assemble THAT IT CAME WITH A SET OF ACTUAL SAFETY GOGGLES.  Yes, Glen Williams received a radio controlled car that would drive up the wall, but hey, safety goggles, Glen - SAFETY GOGGLES.

And, and, it works.  The clock is powered by a simple battery made of zinc and copper strips in vinegar (orange juice was the other option for an acid - sorry guys, but vinegar has a much longer unrefrigerated shelf life) and after carefully following the assembly instructions, I now have the digital clock cheerfully ticking away.

My only complaint is that the name is too simple for a Wallace invention.  It would have to be something like the Liquid-powered Clock-o-matic 7000 to really qualify.


On the other hand, I'm not so sure about where I myself qualify on the "Only for use by children over ten years old" scale.  Because, well, I'm still pretty excited about the goggles.
 - Sid

P.S.  Is there anyone in the audience who doesn't know about Wallace and Gromit, Great Britain's cheese-loving, tea-drinking, invention-building, stop-motion marvels?  A Grand Day OutThe Wrong TrousersA Close ShaveThe Curse of the Were-Rabbit?

Sunday, December 16, 2012

An Unexpected Journey?



In a hole in the ground there lived a hobbit.
J.R.R. Tolkien, The Hobbit.
The first part of Peter Jackson's Hobbit Trilogy made its debut on Friday, and reviews indicate that it's very well done, very much in the spirit of Jackson's work on The Lord of the Rings but perhaps more approachable for the average viewer.  Reviewers also speak very highly of Martin Freeman's performance in the role of Bilbo Baggins, the hobbit who unexpectedly finds himself taken from his quiet if slightly stuffy life in Hobbiton to participate in an epic quest involving dwarves, trolls, wizards, elves, orcs, a dragon and his horde of stolen treasure, and, of course, a magical ring.

None of this is a huge surprise. Peter Jackson has a proven ability to visually portray Tolkien's Middle Earth, and it may well have been for the best that Guillermo del Toro was unable to fit The Hobbit into his directing schedule. However, I'm a little concerned about the fact that it's the first of three movies:  An Unexpected Journey will be followed by The Desolation of Smaug next year, and the trilogy will conclude with There and Back Again in 2014.

My paperback copy of The Hobbit is 272 pages in length, as opposed to the 1008 pages of The Lord of the Rings.  Word count is perhaps a better indicator of relative size - counts vary depending on what's included (chapter headings, appendices, etc.) but online sources have The Hobbit at 95,674 words, and The Lord of The Rings weighing in at 468,420 (not including the appendices).  Short answer, The Lord of the Rings is about four times longer than The Hobbit, and yet the movie adaptation of The Hobbit is apparently going to be about the same length as the Rings series:  three movies and nine plus hours.

I gather from quoted comments by Peter Jackson that some of the extra time will involve Gandalf's various travels and adventures during the time he spends away from Bilbo and the dwarves, and logically there's a lot of room to expand battle scenes and Bilbo's time spent hiding in the palace of the Elvenking and so on.  Even so, I'm worried about story for the sake of profit over story for the sake of story.

I have a lot of confidence in Mr. Jackson, but I also realize that moviemaking is a business.  On that basis, I can easily imagine a meeting in which a group of investment-minded suits suggest that three movies would very likely make three times as much money as one movie, hint hint hint.  In support of this, there's a common thread in reviews of An Unexpected Journey regarding parts that seem to drag on too long, or which have been enormously extended from the original text:  "Things that the book mentions in one sentence are given entire scenes."


I have tentative plans to see the first installment of The Hobbit between Christmas and New Year's, and I hope to go in with an open mind.  But I have to admit that I'm a bit worried that the extra content may mean that Bilbo Baggins isn't the only person going on an unexpected journey. 
 - Sid

Monday, December 10, 2012

Preferably later.

 "God, it's the end of the world, and I'm still 15 minutes late." 
Penny, Seeking a Friend for the End of the World
By the way, speaking of the end of the world, has anyone heard anything new about December 21st?  You know, when the 13th Mayan b'ak'tun* runs out?  Personally, I'd like some kind of solid information about exactly how the world is going to end, it would be a lot easier to prepare. In fact, other than a few end of the world parties, no one seems to have put a lot of planning into this whole thing - there's been no debt holiday, we haven't been told to stay home from work, and as far as I know there hasn't been a single end of the world riot yet.

For that matter, is anyone still tracking the sinister alien objects that were due to arrive around now?  That whole thing seems to have fallen off the map, which is surprising under the circumstances.  Or has it?  Maybe there's a lot more planning going on than we think...

Seriously though, there's been a number of these apocalyptic predictions over the last few years - you know, purely on a statistical basis, sooner or later one of these clowns is going to be right.
 - Sid

*  Did we all get our Olmec As A Second Language credits at university?

Sunday, December 9, 2012

Apocalypse Later.


 "Let me put it this way. We lost the Stanley Cup and we rioted.  What would we do if we couldn't put gas in our cars?"
Donovan Hides, TIR Science Correspondent
I’ve just finished reading John Varley’s Slow Apocalypse, in which an rogue bio-engineered micro-organism destroys the world’s petroleum supply by first solidifying it and then making it explode. The result, of course, is the downfall of civilization, after which it's every man (and woman) for him (or her) self, accompanied by widespread rioting and looting, biker gangs roaming the streets (presumably having shown the foresight to stock up on gasoline) and starvation and disease taking their toll on the population.

It was an interesting read, although somehow surprisingly low in drama. To be fair to Varley, I'm willing to admit that I’ve become a bit jaded - I think I may have been to the end of the world one time too many, as per Robert Silverberg. However, unlike zombie apocalypses, giant asteroid apocalypses, alien invasion apocalypses, global warming apocalypses and all-the-electrical-stuff-stops-working apocalypses*, Varley’s end of the world scenario is something that I could see as a very real possibility under the right circumstances. The question of what happens when fossil fuels run out has been a looming spectre for decades now, and all Varley has to do is accelerate the process.

The title of the novel reflects the fact that there is a four month spooling up period during which the governments of the world are apparently aware of the problem. In the case of the U.S. authorities, inadequate stopgap measures such as fuel rationing and car pooling are instituted while they attempt to surreptitiously deal with the situation, after which the penny drops and everything rather suddenly goes to hell in a handbasket.

Varley’s story is set in California, with most of the action taking place in Los Angeles - where better to start a disaster that involves not being able to drive?  More importantly, Los Angeles exists in a desert, apparently completely dependent on outside sources of food, water and energy, all of which would quickly run out if the transportation system was disrupted.

Varley also loads the dice in favour of chaos. Not only do Los Angeles' neighbouring oil fields (and the La Brea tarpits) explode, but there’s a 9.4 Richter scale earthquake and resultant flooding from broken dams, followed by a massive firestorm. On a national level, an attempted military coup adds insult to injury by crippling the ability of the government to address the situation. After the smoke quite literally clears, there appears to be very little left of the various governing bodies, and survivors band together in small self-sustaining** enclaves that exist at an almost pre-industrial level.

But here’s the question: would the elimination of fossil fuels, specifically oil-based fuels (coal and natural gas are unaffected) lead to the end of the world, or, more accurately, to a full-blown Mad Max-style downfall of civilization? Especially if the governments of the world had four months notice?

Given the current interest in global warming, carbon debt, and general environmental awareness, I'd like to think that the answer is "no".  Right now there's no serious incentive for switching to biofuels, but the potential is there. With some minor adjustments, any car can run on ethanol, and diesel engines were originally designed to run on corn oil rather than fossil fuels. It would take more time, but an emergency situation would accelerate the development of vehicles powered by fuel cells, and although hybrid electrical vehicles may not exactly be commonplace,  they're certainly an established technology, as are natural gas vehicles.

I doubt that four months would be enough time for a complete conversion, but it would be plenty of time to first let people know about the upcoming problem, and second to reassure them that solutions and substitutes were being put in place as quickly as possible.  And the punchline?  After all was said and done, it might even be cheaper at the pumps.
- Sid

*Obviously we need to come up with a term for this - I'm open to suggestions.

** There's a slightly snarky little comment at the end of the book about how these communities are completely committed to recycling and reusing absolutely all waste and garbage. Yes, it took a global disaster to make that happen...

Oh, and did I mention that Jaws isn't science fiction?



Dear Space Channel:

Treasure Island is not a fantasy story.  The presence of pirates may add interest to a tale, but pirates per se are not part of the fantasy genre, in spite of what the Walt Disney Company and Captain Jack Sparrow would have you believe.  Therefore, fond though we are of Eddie Izzard, there is not one reason in the world for you to be showing the two-part British adaptation of Treasure Island.  Yes, Elijah Wood makes an appearance, but he does not play a hobbit - therefore, as with Mr. Izzard, as much as we may like Elijah Wood, that still doesn't make this a fantasy movie.

If you would like a list of more appropriate genre material for broadcast purposes, I refer you to my July 8th, 2007 letter regarding Dead Calm.

Sincerely yours,
Sid

That's it?


"I want everyone to know that I really appreciate all the hard work. You know, watching you guys is like a night in, watching my favorite movie. What was the name of that movie again? Oh, yes. Attack of the stupid bungling idiots who can't find an bigger idiot running around dressed like a bat! Now get to it! 
[Yawns]  
I'm getting bored."
The Joker, Batman: Arkham Asylum
I recently purchased a copy of Batman: Arkham Asylum, the critically acclaimed award-winning 2009 PC game in which the Joker orchestrates a takeover of the asylum with the eventual goal of modifying the serum which gives Bane his strength, using the resulting Titan formula to create an army of monstrous henchmen, and then dumping the leftovers into Gotham's water supply: result, chaos.

Batman, who has just delivered the Joker to the Asylum when the action begins, has a challenging night ahead of him.  He must fight off an army of inmates from Blackgate Penitentiary who are temporarily at Arkham as part of the Joker's plot, subdue escaped Arkham patients, go mano e mano with Bane, recapture the Joker's equally twisted girlfriend Harley Quinn, deal with an infestation of mutated plants created by Poison Ivy, overcome the effects of the Scarecrow's fear potion - oh, yes, and defeat the Joker, too.

As you might imagine based on Batman's approach to crime fighting, Arkham Asylum is primarily a hand to hand combat game, which kept me from purchasing a copy for a long time (well, three years anyway).  I have a substantial background in first-person shooter games, with the accent on the word "shooter", but as a PC rather than console gamer I haven't been terribly interested in mastering the multitude of keyboard commands that are involved in punching, blocking, dodging and kicking.  However, with the Mac version of the game on sale for $20, I decided that it was worth the investment just to see what all the fuss was about.

I have to say that I was pleasantly surprised by how much I enjoyed playing Arkham Asylum. In spite of my doubts about the fighting system, I was able to hold my own against all comers, but the game doesn't simply require that a player memorize complicated keyboard combinations in order to knock out evildoers.  Batman is outnumbered and alone, surrounded by armed criminals. He levels the playing field by concealing himself and picking off his opponents one by one, swinging from the rafters or making his way through air ducts and hidden tunnels, a strategy which requires careful thinking as much as actual combat skill.


In order to help him accomplish his goals, Batman's utility belt is equipped with the usual array of helpful items:  batarang, grappling gun, explosive spray-on gel, a decoder for electronic locks, and so on.  He also has the option of viewing the environment in "detective mode", which activates scanners in his cowl and allows the player to see hidden elements and scan the capabilities and locations of opponents. The integration of the grappling gun to make the game a three dimensional experience is brilliantly done, and in fact the entire interface - fighting, moving, hiding and investigating - is simple and elegant.

But in spite of all that, I was ultimately disappointed by the game, for a very simple reason.  As I mentioned above, I've spent a lot of time playing first person shooters, and that experience has taught me to expect a certain pattern in gameplay: increasingly difficult scenarios punctuated by boss fights, culminating in a final boss fight which is the most challenging part of the game and which very likely requires multiple attempts to achieve victory.

In Arkham Asylum, I was more aware of the villains that I didn't fight than the villains that I did.  There's no sign of the Penguin, no Catwoman (although, come to think of it, Selena Kyle may not end up at Arkham when she gets caught), Clayface remains behind bars, the Riddler is a constant voice-over presence but never physically appears in the game, and Two-face is just briefly mentioned at the end of the game in a radio call from Gotham.  Batman never actually fights Killer Croc, he just runs away from him, and although the Scarecrow appears several times, his role is more psychological than physical.


When I reached what turned out to be the end of the game, with Batman confronting a Titanic Joker in a makeshift arena, I was actually a bit puzzled and wondering what was going to happen - how the Joker would escape, where the game would go next, how the plot would deal with the Joker's sudden physical dominance, where and how he'd change back. When Batman defeated the Joker and the credits began to roll, I was completely surprised to discover that I was finished, without even really breaking a sweat in the final confrontation.

I can make a case for wanting to avoid following the mainstream, and overall I enjoyed the game, but ultimately I ended up feeling like the Joker:  I appreciated all the hard work, but at the end, I was bored.
- Sid