Recent Movies and TV

I have not seen much in the way of movies lately, but I've watched a lot of TV, some via DVR, some via HuLu, and some via Netflix. Here's a little rundown:

Movies
Showtime had a free preview weekend, so I DVR'ed a few movies that looked interesting. I just watched a relatively poor movie called Momentum about Telekinetics. It was from 2003, and I didn't like it as much as the more recent Push. I saw Push at about the same time as I saw Jumper, a movie about teleportation, and I think that was about the time I saw Next as well, a movie about precognition. So I guess I can file Momentum under "mediocre movies about supernatural abilities." The plot of Momentum was not terribly dissimilar to that of X-Men, come to think about it...

Another movie I DVR'ed from Showtime last weekend was called The Con Artist. I thought it would be about a con man, but in fact that title is a pun - it's about an ex-convict who becomes an artist. Get it? I didn't care too much for it.

In the theater not too long ago I saw the new Muppet Movie. I never really liked the Muppets before, I guess I didn't view them as a big part of my childhood like others seem to have. Therefore this movie didn't really speak to me at all.

When it was in theaters I also saw the remake of Footloose. That I liked. It was neat comparing it to my memories of the original.

TV on Netflix
I subscribed to Netflix a while ago - 1 DVD at a time and unlimited streaming for $10/month. Last September or so they decided to raise their rates by 60%, and recently I decided I wasn't getting much use out of the DVD portion of the subscription so I canceled that. I kept the streaming for $8/moth, and here's some of the stuff I've been watching on it:
* Sherlock - This is a recent re-envisioning of the Sherlock Holmes stories set in modern times, and it's really, really good. It's by Steven Moffet, one of the guys who wrote some of the recent Doctor Who episodes. There were only 3 episodes of Sherlock, each about 88 minutes long, and I eagerly await more. I heard that there's a new episode out, but doesn't appear to be on Netflix yet.
* Daybreak - A 13 episode, 1 season show from 2006... imagine if Groundhog Day were a cop show where a detective was being framed for murder, and while he relived the day over and over, he collected evidence to solve the conspiracy against him. I really enjoyed the show, and highly recommend it if you like cop shows.
* Torchwood - A British sci-fi show by Russel T Davies - another guy responsible for the recent Doctor Who. In fact, Torchwood is a Doctor Who  spin-off, and if you notice, "Torchwood" is an anagram of "Doctor Who." I watched the first season and I didn't like it NEARLY as much as Dr Who. The first episode of Season 2 was MUCH better, but I might quit watching it if it doesn't prove more worthwhile pretty soon.

I stumbled across another British show on HuLu a while ago called Misfits. It's kind of like Heroes or Alphas, only without the "hero" aspect. It actually seems rather pointless, but I guess that gives it an excuse to just be ridiculous fun! I don't know, it's just awesome - I just wish they'd use their 'powers' more.

TV on TV
Believe it or not, sometimes I still just turn on the TV and see what's on. I'd heard a lot about Big Bang Theory and how great or funny it is. I saw an episode once, and I'm not sure I like it... Now that it's on TBS they've been showing several episodes in a row almost every day it seems, so I've seen a lot more of it. Sure, it's kinda funny sometimes... but at the same time I find it somewhat insulting.

Keeping up wih the Joneses

Indiana Jones marathon on TV today. I am not watching the whole thing, but I've got The Last Crusade on in the background right now, and it continues to be one of the best movies ever!

Cutthroat Box Office

I have been thinking a lot about Pirates lately - mostly due to the board game Merchants and Marauders which came out recently. I got a copy the other week and have played it a few times - it's probably the best pirate themed board game I've ever played (not too hard - most of them aren't good), but more amusingly, the game is near-identical to thoughts I had on the subject. I wasn't actively working on such a game, but I have a notebook full of thoughts about it, and Merchants and Marauders does everything I wanted to do.

Anyway, in thinking about that game, the other day I went to YouTube and listened to some piratey music - themes and scores from pirate movies such as Pirates of the Caribbean, and an old favorite - Cutthroat Island. this reminded me of that movie, and how it was the biggest flop in motion picture history. I never understood why that movie bombed so badly - tanking the production company, Geena Davis' career, and Hollywood's willingness to create pirate themed movies altogether for almost a decade. A little poor acting/accents notwithstanding, the movie had everything a great adventure fan could ask for - rousing sword fights, narrow escapes, family feuds, adventure, excitement, and pirate treasure.

There are lots of movies out there with bad acting and bad accents (see the first several Harry Potter movies) which haven't put people out of business, so how did this particular movie flop so spectacularly?

I don't know, but in thinking about it I realized that I don't have the DVD in my collection, and I'd like to. For such a "terrible" movie, it's surprisingly hard to find a copy of the DVD - you'd think it would be on the racks at Bookman's or something.

EDIT: I called Bookman's on Monday and they told me they did not have Cutthroat Island in stock. I stopped in yesterday, and found that they had 2 copies on the shelf. So unless they took in 2 copies of the movie and got them organized and on the shelf in about 20 hours, then someone didn't know what they were talking about.

The good news is that I now have the movie, and will likely watch it tonight.

Everyone's a critic.

You've heard this old adage time and time again - what does it mean exactly? Another version you might have heard is a little more biting:

"Opinions are like assholes... everybody's got one, and they all stink!"
When writing in your own voice, on a Blog or in an essay for example where you are the narrator, it's not only reasonable to have an opinion, but good form to assert your opinion. I learned in school that there's no need to preface every comment with "I think..." or "In my opinion..." because I'm the one talking; of COURSE the words coming out of my mouth are my opinion! Timidly stating "your mileage might vary" or "that's just my opinion" makes for a weak sounding argument - those things are supposed to go without saying.

That said, it's easy for a critic to spew whatever assertions they want, no matter how unfounded, to their audience with little or no consideration to the repercussions. Is this OK? Well, it's a free country - who am I to say what your opinion should be? But it could be argued that a formal critic - the guy who reviews movies for the local paper for example, who has thousands of readers who faithfully take his word for gospel - that guy might have more responsibility or moral obligation to temper his reviews.

I watched a movie the other night called Heckler. From IMDB:
HECKLER is a comedic feature documentary exploring the increasingly critical world we live in. After starring in a film that was critically bashed, Jamie Kennedy takes on hecklers and critics and ask some interesting questions of people such as George Lucas, Bill Maher, Mike Ditka, Rob Zombie, Howie Mandel and many more. This fast moving, hilarious documentary pulls no punches as you see an uncensored look at just how nasty and mean the fight is between those in the spotlight and those in the dark.

To be perfectly fair, the critically bashed film starring Jamie Kennedy - Son of the Mask - was pretty terrible. I say this because I was a fan of The Mask, the original movie to which this one was a knock-off/sequel, and this movie really shared nothing with the original. Also, it's possible the target audience for the movie was not the same as the target audience for the original Jim Carey movie, and that's just begging for failure right there. Here's a review comment pasted directly from IMDB:
"This is without a doubt the worst movie I have ever seen. I say this without hyperbole, and believe me, I've seen a lot of bad movies. It's embarrassing and annoying that millions of dollars went into this film and that hundreds (thousands?) of craftspeople spent so much time working on what the writers and producers MUST have known would be a colossal failure.

When a 90 minute film feels this long, drawn out, boring, and incomprehensible, you know that something went wrong somewhere. Also, Jamie Kennedy (whose work I've enjoyed elsewhere) is simply terrible in this role; he was obviously never given a screen test, because no producer in their right mind would consider him entertaining in any way, especially in the guise of The Mask. Simply awful.

Personally, I can't wait to see the reviews by the major film critics, because I know they're do a better job than me at tearing this train wreck to shreds.

The producers of this film should be embarrassed, and more importantly, NEVER be allowed to make theatrical films again. "

As entertaining as that review is to read (indeed, it's more succinct, better written, and provided a much higher laugh/minute ratio than the movie did), it's really very brutal. And this is nothing compared to some of the stuff Jamie Kennedy read in the documentary! So what's the big deal? Why should I care what other people say about other people, and how they feel about it? As you can see I've peppered this blog post with plenty of my own opinions as well. Here's why I care...

As has been mentioned, everyone's a critic. I'm no exception. I have my opinions about movies I've seen and books I've read just like everybody else does. However, Gene Siskel I aint. When I post in my blog:

"I was initially (and still am a little) disappointed in the process Jones took finding Aketor. While he did do some figuring and a (very little) research, he followed a clue to Peru, and another to the tomb of the conquistador explorer, sort of followed a clue to find the city of gold, and all the while had a back and forth fight with a ceaseless opponent. However, it seemed like this movie rushed that process compared to Raiders and Last Crusade, and the back and forth with the Russians seemed a lot less epic. In Raiders Indy and Marion were captured, escaped, captured again, rescued, etc. In the Last Crusade there was a constant struggle between Jones and the Nazis in which they key to the movie - information about the grail- was being passed back and forth. In KotCS, the entirety of the conflict was a game of keep away."

or

"Yesterday I went and saw The Curious Case of Benjamin Button with my parents. It was almost 3 hours long, and while it wasn't boring or bad perse, I don't feel like it really had much of a point. The most descriptive thing I can say about the movie was that I liked it better the first time I saw it, when it was called Forrest Gump."

It's not going to have a big effect on the overall viewership of the Indiana Jones or Benjamin Button movies, and will not have any effect whatsoever on Harrison Ford or Brad Pitt. In addition, as I'm not an actor or a director myself, my opinions are clearly from the perspective of the audience - all I can speak to is what I would have liked to see. I can in no way really say "I could have done better."

On the other hand, I do have something of a voice in the board game community. This wasn't always the case, and I'm not certain how big this voice really is or how much weight it carries... but it's certainly more substantial than my voice in Hollywood. So when I read a 3 year old post from BGG in which I said "I proposed some revisions based mostly on some ideas from Kinizia's new Genesis (which isn't amazing by the way) to try and get more player decisions going on," I cringe a little bit. Reiner Knizia is a very prolific, very well respected game designer. Who am I, with no support whatsoever, to wave off one of his games as lousy - especially when saying that I'd basically copied part of it?!?

This has not been an isolated incident. I have posted negative reviews or comments on many games, even SdJ winners such as Zooloretto and Keltis. Even positive reviews of games such as Warrior Knights contain some form of criticism (that particular thread blew up into a perfectly good example). The other day I tried to think of a game I really enjoy for which I haven't got some type of criticism, and it was tough. Most of the games I really love have something about them that could probably be better - and the kicker is that the thing which could be better isn't necessarily the same from one player to the next!

While I was just a gamer who liked to post on BGG it was more OK, I thought, for me to take up positions against games or game mechanics I didn't like, calling them bad, lame, dumb, or flawed. I'm sure the internet is riddled with posts in which I say fairly brashly that such and such a game could really have used more development. Even if true, one could ask what gives me the right to say such things? After all, what do I know about developing board games? Had I gone through the trouble and effort of getting a game published?

Well, now I have, and that brings the entire situation into a whole new light. I have gone through the effort, not just of designing games, but through the process of publication. To an extent, I do know what I'm talking about. However, these credentials also come with a healthy dose of perspective. Now that I have created something that is up for public consumption (and criticism), I can get a glimpse of what Jamie Kennedy was talking about. Here are some things people have said about my board game Terra Prime:

• "Unplayed and I have no interest in trying. The theme is a minus in my book, the gameplay does not excite me from what I've read about it, and it'll take a good 30+ minutes to use an exacto knife and punch all the pieces that were adequately perforated."
  
• "Absolutely awful. Long. Seemed like a bunch of trekking back and forth. Nit-picky rules regarding Planet placement. Seemed like work rather than fun. Worst game played in 3 years. "
  
• "A bit harsh and not that fun. And the production values are a little embarassing. "

These are all valid criticisms, and frankly, looking through all the comments on BGG, it could be a lot worse. In my case, many hard feelings came from the crappy production from china (thank you manufacturer! Why couldn't our games have come out as nice as others you produced?) - which isn't really the game's fault, and our customers have been very understanding of that. The point is though, how would I feel if someone like me played Terra Prime and said "economic strategies seem too weak, rewards are not well balanced" (oh wait, they did!)? I would probably get defensive and say

"The "economic strategies" (by which I can only assume you mean making deliveries) aren't supposed to beat out exploring and colonizing, because the game is about exploring and colonizing!"

or "I spent a lot of time and effort making sure the rewards were as balanced as possible, and I'm actually pretty proud of how well balanced the game has proven to be!"

or simply "I've played 83+ games (since I started counting), you've played maybe 2. I simply don't think you are correct."

But it doesn't matter really, as those are just some ratings comments. What would matter more is if these comments came straight from the horses mouth - if Tom Vasel did a video review of Terra Prime enumerating how awful the game balance was or how annoying it was to do 3 quick actions then have to wait for everyone else to go before doing just 3 more little actions (both complaints I've read online), that could be a death knell for me and my first publishing outing because a lot of people listen to him. On the other hand, that video review could just as easily extol the virtues of the game balance and the small downtime as turns are snappy and move around the table quickly (both praises I've read online).

The point is that critics have a lot of power to sway people's opinions. Some critics do a good job informing the public about the subject they are reviewing, giving factual information which consumers would find useful. Other critics, as Jamie Kennedy's documentary points out, aren't concerned with any kind of obligation to report any sort of facts, but rather they assert their opinion "because they said so," and hey - a humorous, negative criticism gets more laughs and more attention than either a supportive review or a constructive negative one!

The moral of the story is this: I do not want to be the type of critic who will make an assertion, waving my hands and assuming my word is gospel because I'm the one who said it. This is more true now that I apparently have some semblance of public voice on BGG. I'll stand by my assertions, but I'll have reasoning behind each one, and I'll freely admit when I make a mistake or am proven wrong. One thing I could improve on perhaps is not looking for something to "fix" in every game I play (or movie I watch, or book I read). Nothing is perfect, and even the best games will have something "wrong" with them... I have a tendency to go seeking that out and bringing it to the fore. Perhaps I could do that more judiciously.

Overdue update

I haven't posted in almost a month... so what have I been up to?

Frisbee
As usual, I've been playing Ultimate. Practice has begun for the Tucson Men's team, Monsoon. My current frisbee schedule is Conditioning on Monday, League on Wednesday, Practice on Thursday, and Pickup on Sunday. Last year with this schedule I actually got into pretty good shape by Potlatch (4th of July), but I feel like right now I'm in terrible shape, and I feel like I've been moving really slow... so I don't know if that schedule will be enough.

I will note that my league team is leading the league after the regular season! Wednesday is Quarterfinals, and if we win that game then we will have semifinals and finals next week :)

Diet
In an effort to get into better shape, I've decided to lose some weight. I've been watching it for a while and hovering around 175-178 pounds. I'd said before that I'd rather weigh 165-170, but I haven't been actively trying to lose weight. Well, now I am. I've cut soda down to 1 during the week and maybe another on the weekend (down from 1 per day), and I've stopped eating the brownies Mandy has been bringing to game nights. I think I've already lost a couple of pounds this week!

Travel
Despite being out of work for the last 6 months, I have gone on a number of trips. Most recently I flew to Utah for a frisbee tournament. My flight would have had a layover in Los Angeles, so I talked to Stephanie and arranged to go to L.A. on Thursday and hang out with her*, then continue on to Utah on Friday. Steph had a game night at her house that Thursday night and I played a couple of games I'd not played before - one was called Big Boss, the other Corsairs. Unfortunately, neither one was terribly good. Big Boss wasn't terrible, but was largely dependent on what cards you draw (and it's not a card game, and some cards are way better than others). Corsairs was, as one guy put it, 8 minutes of fun in a 45 minute package.

* I had asked Steph before buying the ticket if stopping off in L.A. was a good idea or not, and she said she thought it would be fun... but I really got the impression she didn't want me there. I knew she would have work to do, so I brought my computer and planned to be as flexible as possible. When not doing work though, Steph spent almost all her time on the phone with another friend or else grilling me for being cheap. She kept asking if there was anything I wanted to do, and I kept saying that the only thing I wanted to do in particular while I was there was to play 1 game of Fermat with her, and she blew that off. She also swapped me off of her team for Times Up immediately after I mentioned that for once we'd be the same team. I don't know if I've ever felt less welcome.

Other recent trips include:
* Las Vegas for the GAMA trade show - a trade show for the Game industry. Mike, Erin and I learned a lot and made a lot of contacts there, and for me in particular I'm referring to a game designer we met who has a game we (Tasty Minstrel Games) might want to publish. Also, the designer guy was really cool, I liked him a lot.

* Portland for Gamestorm and to visit Jeremy. Jeremy and Amelia will be moving back to Seattle, just in time for me to visit them again on my annual 4th of July trip for Potlatch.

Upcoming trips:
* San Fransisco for KublaCon game convention in about 2 weeks
* Eugene Oregon for Solstice frisbee tournament in June
* Seattle for Potlatch frisbee tournament in July
* L.A. for Strategicon game convention in September
* Dallas for BGG.con game convention in November

Work
I still haven't found an engineering job, but things are looking up for Bobbie's new company Mooradian and Associates, so I'm hopeful for some full time employment there. I may be getting a phone call to do some temporary "consulting" for them in the meantime. So I guess that's good.

Movies
I went to see Star Trek the other day. I've never been a big fan of Star Trek, but I can say that they did a good job with the new movie. The casting was great, and I really liked the movie. If I had to complain, I'd say they drew out some of the early scenes with Kirk as a kid, and then they really rushed to get all the characters aboard the Enterprise.

I don't want to spoil anything for anyone, so I'll be a little cryptic - I was really surprised to see that guy on the icy planet (not Scotty and his little buddy). I'm SO glad that wasn't in the previews! I noticed that the story made it possible for them to really re-start the franchise from the beginning, like James Bond got a reboot with Casino Royale and Batman Begins started that franchise from scratch again. They did it in such a way that the original series can remain intact and not cause contradictions for big fans. The only old Star Trek movie I remember is Star Trek IV - the one where they go back in time to save the whales. I remember Scotty talking to an old Macintosh, and someone says "no, no... you have to use the mouse!" After which he picks up the mouse and tries talking into it.

I also recently saw Monsters Vs Aliens, The Watchmen, and Push (all pretty good), as well as Taken (awful). On my satellite I watched Journey to the Center of the Earth (terrible), Forgetting Sarah Marshall (not bad), and I've recorded but not watched Traitor, Pan's Labrynth, Intacto (seen before - neat movie), and Ghost in the Shell II (I heard something bad about it since I recorded it).

Television
As for TV I've been watching a lot of Crossing Jordan. Some channel plays it every weekday morning at 5am. I watched all of season 6, and then they started over with season 1 so I'm watching that. I like that they play them in order. I have watched maybe the first half of season 7 of 24... it's not terribly good. I still think the only interesting thing they can do with that franchise is to have Jack Bauer turn into a terrorist - maybe in a feature film as opposed to another season of the show. Other shows I've been watching are Chuck, Heroes (thank god it's over - it's finally starting to get a little better), In Plain Sight, Scrubs, Burn Notice (starting again soon!), The Unusuals (pretty dumb), and something called Deadliest Warrior where they pit 2 of history's deadliest warriors against each other by studying their weapons via modern technology and then simulating a fight to see who would win. They reveal the outcome by acting it out, and it's all very cool. They've done Pirate vs Knight, Ninja vs Spartan, Apache vs Gladiator, Viking vs Samurai, and Mafia vs Yakuza so far.

Slumdog Millionaire > The Curious Case of Benjamin Button

I saw 2 movies recently, and both of them reminded me of a movie I'd seen before.

Yesterday I went and saw The Curious Case of Benjamin Button with my parents. It was almost 3 hours long, and while it wasn't boring or bad perse, I don't feel like it really had much of a point. The most descriptive thing I can say about the movie was that I liked it better the first time I saw it, when it was called Forrest Gump.

Last week my brother-in-law Matt was raving about Slumdog Millionaire, so when he and Renee were in town we went to see it. I could describe it as a rehash of a movie as well - The Pursuit of Happyness. Only I liked Slumdog much better than Pursuit. In the latter everyone knew that in the end, Will Smith's character would succeed - it was based on a real life success story. All through the movie life kicked him in the nuts over and over, and it got to be almost tedious to watch. When would it end? How much more could he take? In Slumdog Millionaire, the main character is on the game show Who Wants to be a Millionaire, and the story reveals how he has learned the answers to get to where he has on the program (on the verge of winning $20,000,000). He has a somewhat similar story to Will Smith's - various hardships bringing him to where he is today, but the outcome is unknown.

So there you have it: two quick movie reviews. Neither one is terrible, neither one my favorite, and both very reminiscent of movies I'd seen before. Though I like Slumdog Millionaire better than the similar predecessor, while The Curious Case of Benjamin Button wasn't as good.

The case for aliens

As I mentioned last post, while watching Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, I kept thinking "... Aliens? Really!?!" Today I watched the movie again with my father, and between thinking about it this past week and watching it a second time, I liked it a whole lot better. Much like Star Wars: Episode 1, I was fairly disappointed in some of the silliness (like the blatant racial stereotypes, and Jar Jar's antics), but upon reflection I realized it was Not That Bad. Of course with a franchise like Star Wars (or Indiana Jones for that matter) - why would anyone want to settle for Not That Bad?

I still think it's clear that Kingdom of the Crystal Skull hasn't come close to Raiders of the Lost Ark or The Last Crusade, and I already liked it better than The Temple of Doom, but I definitely enjoyed KotCS more the second time around. Here's what I realized that improved the movie for me...

The Indiana Jones movies that were really good involved Indiana revealing some of the more famous, important, mysterious secrets one could conceive in Archeology - finds of biblical proportions: the Ark of the Covenant and the Holy Grail. Obviously those have been used up, so what famous archaeological mystery remains for Indy to discover? Well, there are several things off the top of my head (which I assert is wher the basic idea should come from, so it's recognizable to everyone)... Stonehenge, Easter Island, Egyptian Pyramids, and Aztec/Mayan ruins, and maybe Atlantis. All of those are sometimes surrounded by rumors of aliens, and of them, the Mayan ruins come stock with legends of a city of gold. A city of gold seems highly appropriate for Indiana Jones to go after, and the alien bent not only makes sense, but fits perfectly with the pattern of IJ movies - a fantastical explanation of the real life mystery, and a spectacular, paranormal climax to the movie.

I was initially (and still am a little) disappointed in the process Jones took finding Aketor. While he did do some figuring and a (very little) research, he followed a clue to Peru, and another to the tomb of the conquistador explorer, sort of followed a clue to find the city of gold, and all the while had a back and forth fight with a ceaseless opponent. However, it seemed like this movie rushed that process compared to Raiders and Last Crusade, and the back and forth with the Russians seemed a lot less epic. In Raiders Indy and Marion were captured, escaped, captured again, rescued, etc. In the Last Crusade there was a constant struggle between Jones and the Nazis in which they key to the movie - information about the grail- was being passed back and forth. In KotCS, the entirety of the conflict was a game of keep away.

While that complaint sums up much of what was disappointing about the movie,it does not speak ill of the basic premise of the movie, which is that Indiana Jones uncovers one of the great archaeological mysteries of the world, which turns out to be that aliens were responsible for the hyper-advanced culture of ancient Mayans. That they called them "Interdimensional Beings" instead of the perfectly plausible aliens from another planet which could very well exist and keep the mystery in the realm of reality - frankly I'm sorry they chose to go that route. I'm also not sure what was up with abnormally large and aggressive ants, or monkeys which attack Russians for no apparent reason. I'm not sure whether I can abide the whole idea of psychic warfare, but its not such a stretch that I couldn't live with it - after all, the Russians need some reason to be after the lost city of gold, and just money doesn't seem that exciting.

So see the movie, it's honest to god Indiana Jones. Though the character was so cool to begin with, I don't know that he needed to survive a ground zero nuclear explosion, or all of a sudden have ridden with Pancho Villa (incidentally when he was barely older than he was at the beginning of The Last Crusade). Really, it's not as bad as you might think at first.

And by all means, if you dislike the film, don't dislike it because of the aliens!