Thursday, October 3, 2013

The Escape Hatch has moved!

Follow us down the hatch at

Sunday, June 16, 2013

Review: Man of Steel

It's fitting that, like its protagonist, Man of Steel is from two worlds.  In one way, it succeeds with flying colors (HAH! Get it?) as a superhero movie.  In another way, it fails to be decent as a film.

Coming from Christopher Nolan's Batman co-writer, David S. Goyer, and 300 director Zack Snyder, Man of Steel earns a place in the new school of superhero movies by making the hero's backstory more cohesive and elegant while packing the film with tons of stylish CGI fighting.  You can see Nolan's influence both in the effort to bring something this fantastical down-to-earth (by abandoning or reworking all of the goofiest aspects of Superman) and in all the thoughtful staring into space the characters do.


As an action fan, my jaw was literally sitting slack for about ten minutes straight during Superman's first big fight sequence.  Seriously, I think a few flies wandered into my mouth.  This is the best Superman movie ever, if only because Snyder so perfectly nailed Superman's fighting on film.  Previous movies were hamstrung by the special effects of their time and perhaps the imaginations of their filmmakers.  Before, Superman would lift something heavy very slowly and we were all supposed to be impressed.  Man of Steel thinks nothing of punching characters through entire city blocks of buildings.  At one point Superman brushes a truck off his shoulder because it's getting in the way of him punching someone through a wall.  It's the real deal, and if you're as much a fan of punching as I am, you'll love it.

Just another ho-hum Tuesday in Metropolis

One of the keys to making the new generation of superhero movies work for the general public has been to modify their worlds and lore so they seem as close to believable as possible.  Man of Steel does the best job of this I could have imagined for this character (with one small exception).  It takes pains to make Krypton a real place, and brings a villain who arises naturally from the events of Kal-El's origin, rather than feeling random or contrived - or cartoonishly villainous like film depictions of Lex Luther have been.  Kryptonite isn't a glowing green rock, and Lois Lane, the Pulitzer-winning reporter, isn't going to be fooled by a pair of glasses.  In classic Nolan fashion, the villain and the core conflict of the film are linked to the core themes of the film and the main character's own challenges, instead of seeming randomly plugged-in just to fill the pre-requisite villain slot.

Holy shit look at this guy.  They don't even need to pad the fucking suit.

Man of Steel also stands out in the casting department.  Henry Cavill is Superman, and I hope he gets to keep playing that character for at least another decade.  He plays a calm, controlled version of the character who just emanates kindness and trustworthiness, but also shows flashes of emotional release and humanity - whether it be joy at discovering he can fly, or righteous fury at threats to his loved ones.  Amy Adams fits into the role of Lois Lane so naturally that I forgot she was an actress, and Michael Shannon's Zod lends the character so many qualities that enrich him, even as the script tries to shove him into the land of hamminess.  All of Superman's many parents act the shit out of their scenes, and give performances that elevate the entire film.  Laurence Fishburne is mostly wasted as Perry White, but when he gets one chance to act, he grabs it by the throat.

Unfortunately, the pitch-perfect reimagining of Superman and the jaw-dropping battle sequences can't save Man of Steel from being more than just stylish spectacle.  The plot is fucking perforated - there are innumerable holes and so many belief-stretching coincidences that they stick out even in a movie about a flying alien who punches spaceships.  The character development is shoddy, and somehow fails to really flesh Superman out as a character even though it spends the entire first half of the movie just following him around while he broods.  The motivations and decisions made by almost all characters throughout the movie are inconsistent.  The villains plan is pretty terrible, which is surprising considering that the movie makes a huge point out of how he was bred and raised to be great at military shit.  Did they just not teach strategy and tactics in Kryptonian West Point?  He's a fucking general, for god's sake!


You can see Goyer and Nolan make gestures towards thematic resonance, but they are nowhere near as successful in Man of Steel as they were in The Dark Knight.  The plot wasn't set up well enough to give Superman the kind of agency he'd need to make his choices matter, and the constant plot problems undermine the message every step of the way.  It definitely feels like whatever was thought-provoking about the original script had to be twisted or cut out to make way for more CGI punching and product-placements (OK, we get it, you want us to notice SEARS and IHOP.  Thanks, Warner Brothers Pictures).  On the other hand, given all the brick-over-the-head obvious christ references, maybe Goyer and Snyder are just hacks.  Further evidence for that case: the amount of property damage and human death Superman directly causes or allows to happen.  It creates a dissonance that disrupts the whole movie.  For the final half hour, all I could think was "Superman would get this fight away from civilians" and "Bruce Wayne is going to be SO MAD at you, Clark!" *

And to top it all off, like all blockbusters, it gives the ladies short shrift.  Lois is actually done pretty well early on, but as the movie progresses she devolves into combination damsel/lovestruck puppy instead of the brave, plucky reporter of the first half.  Martha Kent and Mrs. El are both barely in their scenes, making way for Kal/Clark's two fathers to take center stage, and pretty much all the credit.  Even the villain's second-in command, a badass lady soldier, finds a nemesis in a run-of-the-mill human.  Zod's nemesis is Superman, her nemesis is some random soldier with no superpowers, unless you count a previously starring in Law and Order: SVU as a superpower.  That gives you an idea of what the people who made this movie think of women: a woman with godlike superpowers is roughly equivalent to a normal man with a knife.

Roughly equivalent.

Despite the writer's daddy issues and the plotting failures, I think Man of Steel is worth seeing in the theater.  It's definitely the best summer tent pole blockbuster I've seen since The Avengers, and creates an excellent foundation for the new DC film universe (I'm assuming Nolan's Batman won't be the one we see in the Justice League movies).  It's a treat for the senses and the fight scenes knock it out of the park.  Just don't think too much while you watch it, and definitely don't go in expecting The Dark Knight with laser eyes.

*I think the obvious step for the sequel is for the world to be mad at Superman for all of the damage he and his brethren caused.  It makes a great motivation for a complex version of Lex Luthor: he's not evil, he just wants to get rid of Superman before he and his alien friends destroy the planet.  Make him a humanist who would never do anything to hurt other people and is working toward building a legitimate utopia, but becomes sidetracked trying to get Superman to go away and get Earth out of the line of fire.

Sunday, May 5, 2013

Iron Man 3

I saw the third movie in the Iron Man series today, in iMax 3d.  My recommendation (for those who haven’t seen it) before the cut, and a spoiler-laden evaluation after the cut.

If you aren’t sure whether to see this movie:

I cannot unequivocally recommend this movie in general.  I loved the first two in the series, and I think this one drops the ball pretty hard when it comes to the story, which basically makes no sense.  However, the two most important things about the franchise: the CGI superhero action and the humor – are both still intact.
Its special effects top those of the first two films, and nearly teeter into the realm of being impossible to follow.  Fortunately, director Shane Black (taking the reins from Jon Favreau, who still reprises his role as Happy Hogan) keeps things in control just enough to allow the viewer to keep up with the action – barely.  In contrast to the unintelligible mess Michael Bay made of the Transformers fight sequences, these are still downright clear.  The choreography of the action sequences is certainly exciting, but they strain believability much more than the previous films.

There’s actually more humor in this film than the previous two, but I get the feeling that is more because certain scenes are written specifically to be funny.  A lot of throwaway lines and improvisational feel throughout the other movies is reduced here, and replaced with separate chunks of humor that were trying too hard to be funny in the script, but are gamely salvaged by the cast’s talent.

"Wait, what's the name of that thing I don't give?  Oh yeah, it's fucks."

It actually reminds me of a lot of standard 80’s movies, especially with the “buddy cop” scenes between Tony and Rhodey, and an extended section in the middle where Tony makes a new friend.  I assume that’s Black’s influence, given that he made the original Lethal Weapon.

The big mistake the film makes is that it consciously decides to throw all links to reality to the wayside.  The creators correctly observed that one of the keys to the success of the previous Marvel movies was keeping the characters emotionally grounded and relatable (and this movie more than any other tries to focus on the hero as a person), but they missed the lesson about grounding the rest of the movie in the real world.  In the first two, you could almost believe that Iron Man could exist in our world if someone just invented an arc reactor and some repulsors.  That aspect saved the other Marvel movies from the typical superhero movie pitfall of seeming cheesy, staged, and “just for geeks”.  It is completely thrown out the window here.  Iron Man 3 constantly tries its best to break the viewers suspension of disbelief, taking liberties with physics, logic, and the resilience of the human body that create a distraction and make it more difficult to enjoy the movie.

Don’t get me wrong, I love over-the-top action and impossible stunts.  I couldn’t get enough of the final sequence of The Avengers and I am one of the few who actually loves FF7: Advent Children.  However, there are ways to do that insane level of action without just shattering the rules of that world (see The Avengers or the Dark Knight movies), and Iron Man 3 fails in that regard, sacrificing all believability for the coolness factor.  It’s up to each viewer whether they thought that was a worthwhile sacrifice.  I’m just glad that in giving up the realism at the root of the franchise, they at least got something in return.

Taken as a whole, I’d say the movie is entertaining and worth seeing, if you are willing to totally turn off your brain (which I often am).  Otherwise, you’ll be distracted by the nonsensical story path, the constant breaking of the most basic laws of physics and the human body, Tony’s impossible athleticism, and the many out-of character decisions the writers had the characters make in order to force the story down a certain path. 


Tuesday, April 30, 2013

The Ending of Bioshock Infinite Explained

In case you are too dumb to take the hint from the title:


are after the jump:

Friday, September 3, 2010

Quick Response to Gevlon re: WoW's market

I'm going to leave the rest of Gevlon's post on feminism alone because it would take forever to talk about, but I do want to address one point he made that I think is patently false:

Now the game design being sexist seems a different issue but it's not. The game is exactly what its audience wants it to be. Blizzard is an ethic-less company, responding only to market factors. If the audience is a bunch of morons who jerk off watching cybering blood elf girls, then the blood elves are designed to be sexy. Anything else would be bad business.

The problem with this idea is that the demographic he's talking about is only part of the game's audience. 

There is no comprehensive research about female MMO/WoW players.  The BBC did a survey that estimates that 40% of EQ2 players are female.  Nick Yee used data from WarcraftRealms that showed only 16% females, but that's only people who gave their gender on that fansite, so it's surely an under-representation.

Even if you think the BBC's estimate is high, Blizzard's chosen imagery still turns off millions of potential players (not just females, but also males who don't like this art style).  The current state of the game is bad business.

But if they are an ethic-less company that only responds to market factors, why would they do this?  Because their art choices are driven by their own preconceived notions, not market factors.

Blizzard is a boys' club.  Guess how many female artists, out of at least 16, worked on Starcraft 2, according to the behind the scenes DVD?  One.

Blizzard's elite art team, responsible for most of their concept art?  Zero females.  In fact, it's called Sons of the Storm.

Remember that photo of the entire community relations team that came out a while ago (y'know, where Netheara became a sex object for thousands of frustrated internet teenagers by daring to allow her photo to be taken?).  There were 2 women in that crown of 2 dozen.

So a bunch of  boys make a game.  Of course the art will cater to boys, because that's what they think looks cool.  I'd also argue that a lot of socially insecure guys end up devoting their lives to video games to the point that they work at (arguably) the top developer in the world.  We could go on and on all day about why there are so few women involved, and I'm going to sidestep that issue for now.  What I will say is that it's hard to put out something females would like if you don't have a single female on the team.

They have no proof that their portrayal of gender "sells" or doesn't.  The game might sell just as well or better if they had more variety.  They aren't responding to market forces in this case.  It just doesn't occur to them how unappealing some of the art in this game is to a huge chunk of their potential audience, because to them, half-naked buxom women and burly, inadequacy-soothing men have "concentrated coolness".

If they really wanted to improve business, they would give a wider range of options.  And in a lot of ways, they have (dwarf and troll females, gnomes, goblins), but those options are poorly represented by NPCs and especially by major lore figures.  There's absolutely no need to get rid of the impossibly-burly males and buxom chain mail bikini babes that appeal to the insecure boy market.  Don't take anything away from them.  Instead, add more variety to appeal to a bigger audience and bring in even more money.  How about a dwarf female faction leader in heavy armor, built like a tank?  Or a trim and cut human dude in nothing but a chain loincloth (and a bow tie) as a faction leader (just to make it even given sylvanas's outfit, after all)?  Why are the worgen led by some old guy when they could have a young topless male werewolf with washboard abs (talk about a ready-made audience!)?

As it stands, Blizzard is failing to be an ethic-less company responding to market forces, at least when it comes to their representations of gender.

Thursday, August 19, 2010

A few posts you should read

I swore to myself I wouldn't talk about politically divisive issues on my wow blog.  When I read a gaming blog or listen to a gaming podcast, I'm there for gaming discussion, not political discussion.  I have very strong and entrenched political opinions, and I've abandoned more than one entertainment source completely because someone decided to run their mouth with a stupid political opinion.

But you know what?  I'm just going to come out and say that I support feminism, and if you don't like it then please let the door hit you repeatedly in the ass on the way out.

I bring this up because the debate sparked up in the wow blogging community again (as it does every few months) and I wanted to draw attention to some posts on the subject that I think are exceedingly worthwhile reads.  Nevermind that these other people probably have more readers than me.  :P

First, Larisa serves as an entry point into the debate with her pragmatic way of enjoying entertainment despite stereotyping.

This led me to Pewter's post about how WoW is a game made by men for a male audience (even though a ton of the audience is female).

And finally to some ladystats to know and think about from Paperclipchains.

I'm sure there's a ton of other great work out there on the subject, but these are just the things I ran across today that I wanted to draw more attention to.

P.S.  I'm pretty much on blogging hiatus indefinitely (thank you, RL).  Maybe I'll drop a small post like this from time to time.  I hope you'll keep me in your readers.  I also want to thank the wow blogging community, all my commenters, and the bloggers that made this such a welcoming, interesting, and creative place.  Especially Ixo, Larisa, and Spinks.

Wednesday, July 28, 2010

Starcraft 2 Single-Player Impressions

Short version: Blizzard continues to release games when they are ready. 

Long version: OK, I'm not the most impartial reviewer here.  I was predisposed to absolutely love this game after how much fun I had with both the single- and multi-player parts of the original Starcraft, as well as every installment of the Warcraft RTS games.  And guess what?  I absolutely love it.  I love it so much that I wish I could italicize that last sentence twice.

More after the jump.