Be it good or bad, it's a fact that in our cultural landscape the image of a celebrity greatly outweights what personal stories they may have, and
in the average biography, it's generally a bet that the myth is going to outweigh the man.
Autumn De Wilde brings a human face to one of the most underappreciated and misunderstood songwriters of the 20th century, with none of the hyperbole that accompanies most writing about Smith (or any musican for that matter).
De Wilde, perhaps becasue of her close relationship with Smith, focuses on the good times of Smith's life, telling the story through both her own photographs and interviews with close assosiates and family. Although the interviews are informal and generally interesting, many subjects are rehashed, and despite never meeting Smith, Death Cab for Cutie's Ben Gibbard and Chris Walla feature prominantly.
The books skirts around the darker days of Smith (which seemed to be a formible chunk of time), and barring glaning references, and a resigned acceptance of the fact at the end. In fact, you could be forgiven for not realising that Smith actually deeply hurt many of the people featured in the interviews.
It's best to think of Elliott Smith as a eulogy, rather than an informative biography, as the majority of time is dedicated to the period of time between the time that De Wilde and Smith met, and their parting of ways (which is never fully explained, in keeping with the books theme of avoiding hostility). Similary, the photos, although interesting, are stuck in the Figure 8 period, with no photos indicating that Smith lived before (or after) the CD.
It's really a book for people who like Elliott Smith, who downloaded the Basement Demos, and not something like say, the recent Eric Clapton autobiography which is appropriate for someone who is a casual Clapton fan.
Friday, December 28, 2007
Thursday, December 20, 2007
Bruckheimer-MTV Deal Announced
Bruckheimer-MTV Deal Announced
Totilo's Money Hat in Post
In a move sure to excite Red Barrels- and terrify accompanying enemies- Jerry Bruckheimer, the man widely credited for in inventing the explosion, announced his foray into videogames today. Although previously staying clear of videogames, Bruckheimer credits the graphics of the next generation of videogame consoles- particularly the Microsoft Xbox 360 and Sony Playststation 3- for convincing to sign a US $500 Million partnership with MTV. 'Before this time videogame consoles really couldn't do justice to the level of carnage and destruction that I typically put my name to, thus I avoided them like Christopher Walken should have avoided Kangaroo Jack', said Bruckheimer , speaking for his plush Los Angeles home.
Although coy as to what exactly his exact role would entail, it seems likely that it will entail little more than copious use of his name and heavily filled bags of money, a role that he has enjoyed throughout his 'career'. He was similarly shy about revealing exactly games would be developed, although rumors abound that the first games will be 2-d Platformers, considering that the last time either MTV or Mr Bruckheimer was relevant was around 1992.
The other chemical in this volitile mix, MTV, was more open to questions about the deal, in paticular espousing the value of Bruckheimer in MTV's growth in the videogames industry to EA like proportions, suggesting that MTV are interested in ruining media spheres other than music television.
Bruckheimer began his career in 1970, before hurtling to fame after directing an art house retrospective on the nature of inexplicably exploding objects , and has produced several Oscar winning films, including Bad Boys, it's critically acclaimed sequel, and the heart wrenchingly poignant Armageddon, in which Brice Willis professed his love to an asteroid.
MTV, after originally having origins as a music video station, has recently branched out into videogames -like the successful inadequacy machine Rock Band- and strangely arousing pseudo-reality shows.
Note: I feel like an asshole now, as I totally love Stephen Totilo (enough to correctly spell his last name) and that money hat line was out of order. Also, the Prince of Persia movie sounds awesome, in theory. In theory.
Totilo's Money Hat in Post
In a move sure to excite Red Barrels- and terrify accompanying enemies- Jerry Bruckheimer, the man widely credited for in inventing the explosion, announced his foray into videogames today. Although previously staying clear of videogames, Bruckheimer credits the graphics of the next generation of videogame consoles- particularly the Microsoft Xbox 360 and Sony Playststation 3- for convincing to sign a US $500 Million partnership with MTV. 'Before this time videogame consoles really couldn't do justice to the level of carnage and destruction that I typically put my name to, thus I avoided them like Christopher Walken should have avoided Kangaroo Jack', said Bruckheimer , speaking for his plush Los Angeles home.
Although coy as to what exactly his exact role would entail, it seems likely that it will entail little more than copious use of his name and heavily filled bags of money, a role that he has enjoyed throughout his 'career'. He was similarly shy about revealing exactly games would be developed, although rumors abound that the first games will be 2-d Platformers, considering that the last time either MTV or Mr Bruckheimer was relevant was around 1992.
The other chemical in this volitile mix, MTV, was more open to questions about the deal, in paticular espousing the value of Bruckheimer in MTV's growth in the videogames industry to EA like proportions, suggesting that MTV are interested in ruining media spheres other than music television.
Bruckheimer began his career in 1970, before hurtling to fame after directing an art house retrospective on the nature of inexplicably exploding objects , and has produced several Oscar winning films, including Bad Boys, it's critically acclaimed sequel, and the heart wrenchingly poignant Armageddon, in which Brice Willis professed his love to an asteroid.
MTV, after originally having origins as a music video station, has recently branched out into videogames -like the successful inadequacy machine Rock Band- and strangely arousing pseudo-reality shows.
Note: I feel like an asshole now, as I totally love Stephen Totilo (enough to correctly spell his last name) and that money hat line was out of order. Also, the Prince of Persia movie sounds awesome, in theory. In theory.
Monday, December 17, 2007
Musical Class of 2007.
At this moment I'm reading the Rolling Stone 100 Top Songs of the Year, and around half of the eight entries I've so far read have had some snide fucking political comment in them.
Okay, so I'm now twelve songs in and the ratio is the same. They even stooped to putting John Fogerty in there. All due respect to him and all, when the fuck was the last time anyone mentioned him?
Seriously, the Wolowitz doctrine ,that they all hate so much, is more innocuous and subtle than Rolling Stone and it's damn agenda. Okay, we get it, you hate Bush.
Anyway, it's worth noting that I haven't listened to all the CD's that I've wanted to this year, Iron and Wine and Springsteen are the first that spring to mind, although there's probably dozen more kicking about.
Elliott Smith- New Moon
Elliott Smith and a guitar, much like Ashley Tisdale and a short pair of shorts, was/is the perfect merging of person and object. (Although whilst Mr Smith’s life was cut short, Ms Tisdale’s choice of garment cannot be cut short enough! ZING!).
At times it feels that everything that Mr Smith touched at that time turned into gold. Alcohol tainted gold perhaps, but gold nonetheless.
Before the Ocsars, the multi-layered pop records and eventual death, Elliott Smith was just an incredibly talented musician with a guitar, and that is what New Moon demonstrates. Whilst his influence in every mopey songwriter since is clearly evident, his influences are as not as easy to pin down. Whilst the Beatles are an obvious candidate, they never did acoustic quite this well. Same case lyrically, as no one had ever quite captured the poigant honestly and betrayal of Smith, before Smith.
Okay, so maybe it's easy to see why a few of the tracks where left unreleased for a decade, but others like Placeholder, See You Later and Angel in the Snow deserve a release, as they are among his (already crowded) highlights reel.
In nothing else, this CD is a reminder that we're probably not going to see such a gifted musican again during our lifetime.
Grade: High Distinction
Rilo Kiley- Under The Blacklight
Someone, I'm not sure who, remarked somewhere (I'm not sure where either) that Under the Blacklight was Rilo Kiley's attempt at selling out. Although I generally hate that term, I actually kind of agree with it in this case (and judging by the fact 'Dreamworld' was playing during one of my rare trips to Burger King, so do other people).
Many of the tracks are a departure from their 'traditional' sound, although to be fair all their CD's have been kind of eclectic, so I'm certainly not going to accuse them of anything nefarious, only of ungoing yet another crazy revamp.
Although their previous albums where great (in fact better then UTBL)the reason I love this is because, as every music publication screams every two seconds, this CD sounds like Fleetwood Mac. Or more specifically: Fleetwood Mac when Fleetwood Mac wasn't a bunch of backstabbing and ugly geriatrics.
Yep, Fleetwood Mac=Rilo Kiley was this years version of Zeppelin=Wolfmother, only this time the imitator had the chops to back it up, as the best tracks on every UTBL exude Witchnaddness*.
That being said, I'd hate for this to came off as me loving a CD just because it kind of resembles another band, as UTBL is kind of a musical Charmelon, and snuggled in amongst Rilo Kiley stables are songs that range from Rap (Dejalo) to Bluesly (and Creepy) sounding numbers (15).
*Inexplicably, the word to describe the musical effects of wearing a Witches hat does not exist, so I had to make do.
Grade: High Distinction
Bright Eyes- Cassadaga
If 2007 was the year that Jenny Lewis summoned Steve Nicks, then it was also the year that Conor Orberst grew up. Well kind of anyway. Whilst he still may enjoy cascading hecklers with water, Cassadaga showed a growth in maturity. No more 7 minute angst-fests, this time it felt like the work of somebody whose come to terms that the world blows, and how he was trying to deal with said blowiness. Of course, it was still a Bright Eyes record, and as such included the staple nihilism, resignation and other happy emotions, but now it felt like things might get better. Think of it as like leaving rehab (pure speculation on my part)
In addition to sounding more 'grown up', songs like Four Winds, Clense Song and I must Belong Somewhere improved and solidified on the Alt-Country sound from I'm Wide Awake, It's Morning, thus making thousands of teenage girls gradual slide into loving The Jayhawks inevitable.
Oh, and of course, no matter how much he's grown, it's not a Bright Eyes record without a song about a slutty girl.
Grade: Distinction
Ryan Adams: Easy Tiger
After listening to Easy Tiger, it's easy to see why this wasn't labeled as a 'Cardianals' inclusive CD. This is a personal CD, perfectly exemplified by the lonely acoustic guitar prevalent through a good portion of the songs, the best of which could have been off of a Whiskeytown release
As if the solo sentiment wasn't already obvious, it's rammed down our proverbial throats by Easy Tigers swan song (and highlight) I Taught Myself How to Grow. Still, there are still some tracks that show a heavier side, the obvious choice being Halloween Head, extra points given for the braggadocio inspired 'Guitar Solo' announcement.
A fitting announcement, considering that the jangly guitar tracks are the most enjoyable, and in addition demonstrate Adam's aptitude at writing a fine guitar track, a talent that hadn't been ultilised enough in his previous solo work.
If I was to say that Easy Tiger was solid, then it would be a simple statement of fact rather then an indictment or expression of apathy. It's a bad word to sum up a great CD, but it's the best that springs to mind. Rather then a CD of songs that are loosely related, like 29, this is a record that shows Adam's versatility, with each song being a departure from the other, yet still having a cohesive place within the album. The songs themselves feel well put together, a compliment considering that a number of record in Adam's catalogue don't have the best ratio of good to bad songs.
Grade: Distinction
Band Of Horses:Cease To Begin
I'll admit, I'm asking for the late pass on this one, as I only heard it a couple of weeks ago. As such, my opinion may be tinged by that giddy feeling (otherwise known as happiness at something, a feeling that I don't think the poor old fellows of Band of Horses get too often. They ought to happy though, as they've made one of the finest releases of the year, blending Indie, Slowcore and Alt-Country together in a perfect union (under god). Although the 34 minutes of Cease to Begin are predictable, the disappointment at this face...ceases to begin becasue it is only their second record, and if it ain't broke...
. I'll leave the My Morning Jacket comparisons at the door (mainly because I don't listen to them) and simply that Ben Bridwells vocal work makes the CD. A rather obvious statement considering that he's in charge of lead vocals, but his at-times bordering on Psychedelic vocal work is simply brilliant. However, the best moments are reserved for the slower songs (on an already admittedly) slow CD such as No One's Gonna Love You and Marry Song.
Grade: Credit/Distinction, ask me in two weeks time.
Modest Mouse- We Were Dead Before The Ship Even Sank
If I may so bold as to have a go at music websites, it's that early releases aren't getting a fair shake in the best of lists. Maybe it's too much irreverent Velvet Underground trivia occupying their brain, but the first six months of the year seem irrelevant. Case In Point: The Latest offering from Modest Mouse, We Were Dead Before the Ship Even Sank.
It's proably going to be kind of controversial to begin by saying that it's probably the best overall release by Modest Mouse. Not to discredit their earlier work, but We Were Dead has walks that perfect instrumental line between 'Heavy' and 'Modest Mouse Heavy'. Maybe the inclusion of Johnny Marr and his oh-so-nice guitar lines has negated the need to throw the Kitchen Sink into every song, but Modest Mouse just sound right, quite a compliment considering the bands hefty catalogue.
Grade: Credit
Ashley Tisdale: Headstrong
As you probably realized from the opening Elliott Smith salvo, I have quite the obsession with Ashley Tisdale (whether said obsession is unhealthy is up to the courts to decide). Well, not so much her as her rather large, yet cute nose (Love does enter through the nostrils after all*).
So, as the roll out with starlets these days, after appearing in some bad form of viewable media, a CD of Ghost-written tracks was inevitable (Kristen Bell self titled out next year. Believe me, I've seen the future), and as is the case with the industry these days, said CD probably wouldn't be very good.
Anyway, Imagine my surprise when it didn't actually totally suck. In fact, much like the sound of my own voice, it's kind of enjoyable to listen when drunk. Just don't expect anything deep (in both examples), becasue most of what is actually being said is pretty bad. However, barring the guest rap, it's the most enjoyable kind of bad, which is all that really matters right?
Side note: What the fuck happened to Hayden Panetwhatever's CD? I read (don't ask where) that it was supposed to be out at the start of 2007, yet here we are, still waiting.
*Holy Shit, If you get that reference then I love you.
*Satisfying my 'Holy shit, I'm drunk, depressed and need to listen to a large nosed girl sing tween-dirty pop over bad disco music' emotion, which comes around kind of often.
Grade: Credit. Yes, you heard me.
Low Stars: Low Stars
Hey Eagles, especially that wanker Don Henley, how does it feel to crawl out from hiatus after 20-something years only to be beaten at your own inoffensive-country tinged game? Because that's how it felt to this individual after hearing both The Long Road out of Eden and Low Stars, especailly since this is their debut record.
Although sometime being blatantly derivative of the Eagles and CSNY, Low Stars manage to somehow make a good CD when everything is saying that it should fail. Take the first track, Tell the Teacher:
Lyrics that sometimes verge on out right corniness, and other times feel like an afterthought? Check? Bad cheesy 80's guitar solo? Yep, yet somehow it still manages to be enjoyable, and even exemplary in the case of L.A Forever, yet another song that (literally) sings about the evils of Los Angeles. As you'd expect, acoustic guitars and vocal harmonies abound, and they generally live up to their ambitions of sounding like Best Of Your Love era Eagles, barring a downright horrendous attempt at pseudo-rapping.
Grade: Pass/Credit
Wilco: Sky Blue Sky
Commentary on music seems to be built on the comparison of new band to old band.
You've already seem it with Rilo Kiley, but I want to throw another one out there: Wilco and Big Star. Granted, it's stupid, but nothing reminded me of Third/ Sister Lovers than Sky Blue Sky. Sure, there's no stand up out track like Blue Moon*, but they are both eclectic mixes of pop music done well. Although Jeff Tweedy has still not realized that country is where he ought to be, Impossible Germany and others prove a fine distraction until I reunite Uncle Tupelo at gunpoint.
*Okay, so almost all the tracks were standouts on that CD.
Grade: Pass
Okay, so I'm now twelve songs in and the ratio is the same. They even stooped to putting John Fogerty in there. All due respect to him and all, when the fuck was the last time anyone mentioned him?
Seriously, the Wolowitz doctrine ,that they all hate so much, is more innocuous and subtle than Rolling Stone and it's damn agenda. Okay, we get it, you hate Bush.
Anyway, it's worth noting that I haven't listened to all the CD's that I've wanted to this year, Iron and Wine and Springsteen are the first that spring to mind, although there's probably dozen more kicking about.
Elliott Smith- New Moon
Elliott Smith and a guitar, much like Ashley Tisdale and a short pair of shorts, was/is the perfect merging of person and object. (Although whilst Mr Smith’s life was cut short, Ms Tisdale’s choice of garment cannot be cut short enough! ZING!).
At times it feels that everything that Mr Smith touched at that time turned into gold. Alcohol tainted gold perhaps, but gold nonetheless.
Before the Ocsars, the multi-layered pop records and eventual death, Elliott Smith was just an incredibly talented musician with a guitar, and that is what New Moon demonstrates. Whilst his influence in every mopey songwriter since is clearly evident, his influences are as not as easy to pin down. Whilst the Beatles are an obvious candidate, they never did acoustic quite this well. Same case lyrically, as no one had ever quite captured the poigant honestly and betrayal of Smith, before Smith.
Okay, so maybe it's easy to see why a few of the tracks where left unreleased for a decade, but others like Placeholder, See You Later and Angel in the Snow deserve a release, as they are among his (already crowded) highlights reel.
In nothing else, this CD is a reminder that we're probably not going to see such a gifted musican again during our lifetime.
Grade: High Distinction
Rilo Kiley- Under The Blacklight
Someone, I'm not sure who, remarked somewhere (I'm not sure where either) that Under the Blacklight was Rilo Kiley's attempt at selling out. Although I generally hate that term, I actually kind of agree with it in this case (and judging by the fact 'Dreamworld' was playing during one of my rare trips to Burger King, so do other people).
Many of the tracks are a departure from their 'traditional' sound, although to be fair all their CD's have been kind of eclectic, so I'm certainly not going to accuse them of anything nefarious, only of ungoing yet another crazy revamp.
Although their previous albums where great (in fact better then UTBL)the reason I love this is because, as every music publication screams every two seconds, this CD sounds like Fleetwood Mac. Or more specifically: Fleetwood Mac when Fleetwood Mac wasn't a bunch of backstabbing and ugly geriatrics.
Yep, Fleetwood Mac=Rilo Kiley was this years version of Zeppelin=Wolfmother, only this time the imitator had the chops to back it up, as the best tracks on every UTBL exude Witchnaddness*.
That being said, I'd hate for this to came off as me loving a CD just because it kind of resembles another band, as UTBL is kind of a musical Charmelon, and snuggled in amongst Rilo Kiley stables are songs that range from Rap (Dejalo) to Bluesly (and Creepy) sounding numbers (15).
*Inexplicably, the word to describe the musical effects of wearing a Witches hat does not exist, so I had to make do.
Grade: High Distinction
Bright Eyes- Cassadaga
If 2007 was the year that Jenny Lewis summoned Steve Nicks, then it was also the year that Conor Orberst grew up. Well kind of anyway. Whilst he still may enjoy cascading hecklers with water, Cassadaga showed a growth in maturity. No more 7 minute angst-fests, this time it felt like the work of somebody whose come to terms that the world blows, and how he was trying to deal with said blowiness. Of course, it was still a Bright Eyes record, and as such included the staple nihilism, resignation and other happy emotions, but now it felt like things might get better. Think of it as like leaving rehab (pure speculation on my part)
In addition to sounding more 'grown up', songs like Four Winds, Clense Song and I must Belong Somewhere improved and solidified on the Alt-Country sound from I'm Wide Awake, It's Morning, thus making thousands of teenage girls gradual slide into loving The Jayhawks inevitable.
Oh, and of course, no matter how much he's grown, it's not a Bright Eyes record without a song about a slutty girl.
Grade: Distinction
Ryan Adams: Easy Tiger
After listening to Easy Tiger, it's easy to see why this wasn't labeled as a 'Cardianals' inclusive CD. This is a personal CD, perfectly exemplified by the lonely acoustic guitar prevalent through a good portion of the songs, the best of which could have been off of a Whiskeytown release
As if the solo sentiment wasn't already obvious, it's rammed down our proverbial throats by Easy Tigers swan song (and highlight) I Taught Myself How to Grow. Still, there are still some tracks that show a heavier side, the obvious choice being Halloween Head, extra points given for the braggadocio inspired 'Guitar Solo' announcement.
A fitting announcement, considering that the jangly guitar tracks are the most enjoyable, and in addition demonstrate Adam's aptitude at writing a fine guitar track, a talent that hadn't been ultilised enough in his previous solo work.
If I was to say that Easy Tiger was solid, then it would be a simple statement of fact rather then an indictment or expression of apathy. It's a bad word to sum up a great CD, but it's the best that springs to mind. Rather then a CD of songs that are loosely related, like 29, this is a record that shows Adam's versatility, with each song being a departure from the other, yet still having a cohesive place within the album. The songs themselves feel well put together, a compliment considering that a number of record in Adam's catalogue don't have the best ratio of good to bad songs.
Grade: Distinction
Band Of Horses:Cease To Begin
I'll admit, I'm asking for the late pass on this one, as I only heard it a couple of weeks ago. As such, my opinion may be tinged by that giddy feeling (otherwise known as happiness at something, a feeling that I don't think the poor old fellows of Band of Horses get too often. They ought to happy though, as they've made one of the finest releases of the year, blending Indie, Slowcore and Alt-Country together in a perfect union (under god). Although the 34 minutes of Cease to Begin are predictable, the disappointment at this face...ceases to begin becasue it is only their second record, and if it ain't broke...
. I'll leave the My Morning Jacket comparisons at the door (mainly because I don't listen to them) and simply that Ben Bridwells vocal work makes the CD. A rather obvious statement considering that he's in charge of lead vocals, but his at-times bordering on Psychedelic vocal work is simply brilliant. However, the best moments are reserved for the slower songs (on an already admittedly) slow CD such as No One's Gonna Love You and Marry Song.
Grade: Credit/Distinction, ask me in two weeks time.
Modest Mouse- We Were Dead Before The Ship Even Sank
If I may so bold as to have a go at music websites, it's that early releases aren't getting a fair shake in the best of lists. Maybe it's too much irreverent Velvet Underground trivia occupying their brain, but the first six months of the year seem irrelevant. Case In Point: The Latest offering from Modest Mouse, We Were Dead Before the Ship Even Sank.
It's proably going to be kind of controversial to begin by saying that it's probably the best overall release by Modest Mouse. Not to discredit their earlier work, but We Were Dead has walks that perfect instrumental line between 'Heavy' and 'Modest Mouse Heavy'. Maybe the inclusion of Johnny Marr and his oh-so-nice guitar lines has negated the need to throw the Kitchen Sink into every song, but Modest Mouse just sound right, quite a compliment considering the bands hefty catalogue.
Grade: Credit
Ashley Tisdale: Headstrong
As you probably realized from the opening Elliott Smith salvo, I have quite the obsession with Ashley Tisdale (whether said obsession is unhealthy is up to the courts to decide). Well, not so much her as her rather large, yet cute nose (Love does enter through the nostrils after all*).
So, as the roll out with starlets these days, after appearing in some bad form of viewable media, a CD of Ghost-written tracks was inevitable (Kristen Bell self titled out next year. Believe me, I've seen the future), and as is the case with the industry these days, said CD probably wouldn't be very good.
Anyway, Imagine my surprise when it didn't actually totally suck. In fact, much like the sound of my own voice, it's kind of enjoyable to listen when drunk. Just don't expect anything deep (in both examples), becasue most of what is actually being said is pretty bad. However, barring the guest rap, it's the most enjoyable kind of bad, which is all that really matters right?
Side note: What the fuck happened to Hayden Panetwhatever's CD? I read (don't ask where) that it was supposed to be out at the start of 2007, yet here we are, still waiting.
*Holy Shit, If you get that reference then I love you.
*Satisfying my 'Holy shit, I'm drunk, depressed and need to listen to a large nosed girl sing tween-dirty pop over bad disco music' emotion, which comes around kind of often.
Grade: Credit. Yes, you heard me.
Low Stars: Low Stars
Hey Eagles, especially that wanker Don Henley, how does it feel to crawl out from hiatus after 20-something years only to be beaten at your own inoffensive-country tinged game? Because that's how it felt to this individual after hearing both The Long Road out of Eden and Low Stars, especailly since this is their debut record.
Although sometime being blatantly derivative of the Eagles and CSNY, Low Stars manage to somehow make a good CD when everything is saying that it should fail. Take the first track, Tell the Teacher:
Lyrics that sometimes verge on out right corniness, and other times feel like an afterthought? Check? Bad cheesy 80's guitar solo? Yep, yet somehow it still manages to be enjoyable, and even exemplary in the case of L.A Forever, yet another song that (literally) sings about the evils of Los Angeles. As you'd expect, acoustic guitars and vocal harmonies abound, and they generally live up to their ambitions of sounding like Best Of Your Love era Eagles, barring a downright horrendous attempt at pseudo-rapping.
Grade: Pass/Credit
Wilco: Sky Blue Sky
Commentary on music seems to be built on the comparison of new band to old band.
You've already seem it with Rilo Kiley, but I want to throw another one out there: Wilco and Big Star. Granted, it's stupid, but nothing reminded me of Third/ Sister Lovers than Sky Blue Sky. Sure, there's no stand up out track like Blue Moon*, but they are both eclectic mixes of pop music done well. Although Jeff Tweedy has still not realized that country is where he ought to be, Impossible Germany and others prove a fine distraction until I reunite Uncle Tupelo at gunpoint.
*Okay, so almost all the tracks were standouts on that CD.
Grade: Pass
Tuesday, December 11, 2007
Attn Jay Jay's: I hate you and your stupid t-shirts.
Jay Jay's, by my astute observations, seem to be the Australian equivlent of Hot Topic (meanwhile being in steadfast denial of this), and intent on making the seventh circle of hell look like some garishly coloured Pie-Chart. Much like Comedy Inc (or any other Australian comedy show) they just pick the most popular thing that other people are doing and follow it. Kind of ironic that a business has a philosophy so similar to their consumer base.
There are three products in their 'me too' brand of clothing that are paticularly bad, yet irrefutably, and inexplicably popular. And these are what we're here to talk about.
1) (Artistic recreation)
So today I'm reading the paper, and I see a picture of Led Zeppelin pre vomit-choke related breakup. Robert Plant has nothing but a tambourine, and seems pretty happy with his decision. Jimmy Page on the other hand has an Double Necked 18 string guitar. This is the equivlent of wearing one of these shirts. Okay, so in truth it's not, becasue nobody wearing these shirts could rip a Pentatonic like like Mr Page, but the statement stands, you are fucking conpemsating for something. I mean, has this helped anyone in getting a girl? Or even in starting any conversation that didn't start with 'So what are you trying to make up for?'?
Funny, for all the faux-parody warning signs, the only one that they don't make is one that says 'Avoid me like the fucking plague'.
Jay Jay's: stocking the freshest in vintage T-shirts (fresh off a boat from China). This year it seems to be all about the videogames. Or rather, the illusion that wearing a Nintendo shirt that looks old is somehow cooler to wearing a normal Nintendo shirt, or even admitting that you know what a 'Nintendo' is. Unless they're meant to be ironic, which isn't that likely.
Now, I'm a perfectly reasonable guy, and generally when I see a T-shirt with a humoursly altered saying or road sign that implicates the wearer if gifted sexually* I only get a vague sense of rage, accompanied by an overwhelming amount of sympthy (Or both the wearer and everyone within eyeshot, see I'm a humanitarian!).
Now, don't get me wrong, I think that teenage suicide and depression is on a humour scale matched only by the Holocaust and people who people who take the Shins seriously, but I have to question the wisdom of wearing said message on a t-shirt.
That being, I have some suggestions for the writers of Jay Jay's T-shirts* Maybe they could use this as a springboard to make fun of other significant issues in youth culture! I mean, why hasn't something been done on Drug Abuse? Or Teen Poverty? Those subjects are fucking hilarious!
Here, you can have this one for free:
See, it's kind of meta, if only for my limited Paint Skills.
Also, during my search for pictures, I also came upon this:
Dude, Cosplay is bad enough, but having to carry around a picture to make aware aware of said crossdressing is just horrendous.
*Or that the viewer is ungifted. Women, you are aware that 'You Couldn't Afford It' infers to me that you are a prostitute? And that I couldn't afford the measly ammount of cocaine nessecry to conduct said transaction?
*Okay, so in truth they don't have writers, they just steal things off the internet. Hey! Just like me!
There are three products in their 'me too' brand of clothing that are paticularly bad, yet irrefutably, and inexplicably popular. And these are what we're here to talk about.
1) (Artistic recreation)
So today I'm reading the paper, and I see a picture of Led Zeppelin pre vomit-choke related breakup. Robert Plant has nothing but a tambourine, and seems pretty happy with his decision. Jimmy Page on the other hand has an Double Necked 18 string guitar. This is the equivlent of wearing one of these shirts. Okay, so in truth it's not, becasue nobody wearing these shirts could rip a Pentatonic like like Mr Page, but the statement stands, you are fucking conpemsating for something. I mean, has this helped anyone in getting a girl? Or even in starting any conversation that didn't start with 'So what are you trying to make up for?'?
Funny, for all the faux-parody warning signs, the only one that they don't make is one that says 'Avoid me like the fucking plague'.
Jay Jay's: stocking the freshest in vintage T-shirts (fresh off a boat from China). This year it seems to be all about the videogames. Or rather, the illusion that wearing a Nintendo shirt that looks old is somehow cooler to wearing a normal Nintendo shirt, or even admitting that you know what a 'Nintendo' is. Unless they're meant to be ironic, which isn't that likely.
Now, I'm a perfectly reasonable guy, and generally when I see a T-shirt with a humoursly altered saying or road sign that implicates the wearer if gifted sexually* I only get a vague sense of rage, accompanied by an overwhelming amount of sympthy (Or both the wearer and everyone within eyeshot, see I'm a humanitarian!).
Now, don't get me wrong, I think that teenage suicide and depression is on a humour scale matched only by the Holocaust and people who people who take the Shins seriously, but I have to question the wisdom of wearing said message on a t-shirt.
That being, I have some suggestions for the writers of Jay Jay's T-shirts* Maybe they could use this as a springboard to make fun of other significant issues in youth culture! I mean, why hasn't something been done on Drug Abuse? Or Teen Poverty? Those subjects are fucking hilarious!
Here, you can have this one for free:
See, it's kind of meta, if only for my limited Paint Skills.
Also, during my search for pictures, I also came upon this:
Dude, Cosplay is bad enough, but having to carry around a picture to make aware aware of said crossdressing is just horrendous.
*Or that the viewer is ungifted. Women, you are aware that 'You Couldn't Afford It' infers to me that you are a prostitute? And that I couldn't afford the measly ammount of cocaine nessecry to conduct said transaction?
*Okay, so in truth they don't have writers, they just steal things off the internet. Hey! Just like me!
Friday, December 7, 2007
Myself, Assassin's Creed and Game Reviews.
As is the power of reviews, everybody needs to take note of them. Now I understand that reviews are generally are a big issue (why I am not sure, but that's not what I'm here to talk about*) to people, generally I wouldn't care about reviews at all, but Assassin's Creed seems to be a contentious issue, and one of the games that has really split the reviewing community down the middle. Yes, like the Crusades of old (what a strangely relevant analogy!) it seems there are two sides: With Assassin's Creed or Against Assassin's Creed. This I feel is kind of disappointing (although not surprising given the gaming community at large is as reasonable and rational as Al Queda soldiers riding on the back of the most stubborn animal in the universe) because a) People seem to forget that Assassin's Creed is actually a game, not a series of reviews and b) I think that t the quantity of bad reviews is are getting a disproportionate amount of attention, which will affect not only the sales, but the legacy of Assassin's Creed itself. I say this not particularly out of undying love for the game, but more because I feel to the need to talk about how dramatically the reviews altered my experience with at least part of my time with Assassin's Creed.
In fact, it would be fair to say that I hated the game when I first played it, paticuarly surprising considering that I was a fan of Assassin's Creed way back when it was first shown. Not sure why, but something about the mix of Montreal, strange running antics and history captured me, and I pretty much gave them a sale two years the game actually became..sellable. But a week ago those two years of fandom where as pointless as the superficial.com without Hayden Panetterie (okay, so that's not true, I'll love that website forever). Why? Because I wanted blood, wanted blood like I want thesuperficial.com to post more Hay P pics*. Yep. I was pissed, and convinced that the reviews were right and this game was the abortion that Michael Vick should have been**. I was pissed that some idiot decided that the Metriod method of taking all your weapons away is a somehow rewarding gameplay experience (developers, here's a hint: It's annoying as all hell), I was pissed about a sundry of other small, rather insignificant details. In fact I was just generally pissed, although I was still playing it several hours a day (much to the determent of a Cactus Boogie tab, which was sitting there unloved).
This joyful tirade of hate continued until I was about 75% of the way through the game, as being rather close to completion I started working through my overall impressions on the game. So there I was, wandering through Damascus (with Rilo Kiley admittedly demoodingifying (made up word!) the situation) thinking of the torrent of shit that I was going to hurl at Ubisoft for playing with my emotions. I mean, this was going to be the 'You're So Vain' fuck you letter of 2007.
Then I actually thought about it,and there was nothing. I mean, I couldn't think of a thing that I didn't like, and suddenly my 'You're So Vain' was turned into an undying love letter to ruins Assassin's Creed
Now granted, this was before the game totally self destructed in the last hour. The whole 'religious piece of stone holding increbible power' smelt of bullshit. Not just bullshit, but the worst kind of bullshit, the kind that almost ruined my game experience. To have a story that bellowed the virtues of knowledge and anti-religious fever reversed with a plot device that was the complete antithesis of this idea was immensely disappointing. Surprisingly enough, I enjoyed the 'actual' end of the game.
At least I think I did. ' I think it did' Which kind of sums my my thoughts of the story in general, as I have no idea if it's my overly analytical nature or the story is really meant to be a pseudo-philosophical discussion on the nature of war and morality. However, I'm willing to give Ubisoft the benefit of the doubt, given that my thought processes generally fall between mildly and totally inappropriate and unintelligible, thus it's more likely that they are geniuses instead of me.
Speaking of unintelligible (and my thought processes/somehow being able to feel totally inferior and superior at the same time) Ubisoft are either brave/insane/both for setting a game set during the third Crusade. Perhaps it's me putting on my history major hat again, but does the average gamer really have a good understanding of the Crusades? I mean, that was a incredibly convoluted period in history, and the game just kind of throws you into the proverbial deep end.
Elitist whining aside, I loved the game, every aspect of it. To me the lead up missions to the assassinations weren't repetitive, they were preparation and a chance to give a backstory to who the folks were that you were going to unsheathe your blade into***. The world was beautiful, involving, and the beggers, whilst annoying as shit, added atmosphere to the game.
Yes, I've gone on a tangent, but I'm getting to my point.
Basically, whilst I loved the game, I had passed judgment on the game based on notions that I had picked up from reviews. They had a negative disposition, and that disposition transferred to me after reading the reviews. Now, I'm not trying to have a go at the reviews (or the reviewers themselves, and in saying this I should also say that it's commendable that a major game can be picked apart (especially in the current situation in gaming journalism). Rather, I'm trying to disown myself (and not for the first time, believe me) because I was so easily coerced (so easily in fact that I wasn't even aware if it!) into letting my experience of a game be defined by a review and not the game itself.
Now, obviously this is a problem endemic to the gaming in general, as even a cursory glance at a message board for a recently released game will yield more topics about reviews then the actual game. Now, I think it would be fair to say that this is a trait that is reasonably isolated to the videogames. My third point, which is slowly occurring to me as I write this, is that this is the reason that the Gerstmann/Gamespot situation is so heightened. It has shit ultimately to do with Eidos, Gamespot or any other company, it's really about the nature of game reviews. Ultimately (to at least myself) the question for the reasons of Mr Gerstmanns termination are irrelevant. Just the fact that it's the Tom Clancy 'could happen tomorrow' type of storyline applied to games journalism is enough to be worrying.
About a year ago the wonderful Chuck Klostermann wrote a wonderful article in the sometimes wonderful Esquire magazine about games journalism and music journalism, particularly a fellow called Lester Bangs, whom I'm assuming you have a vague knowledge of. The gist of this article (once it could be distinguished from the litany of advertisements featuring half naked men) was that games journalism is so infantile because it's nothing but the facts, the writing is formulaic and they are more consumer information then enlightened debate.*****
To elaborate in my own words, If music reviews were like game reviews then the rating would depend almost entirely on the technical proficiency of the musicians in question (leaving Bob Dylan with nothing but 2 star ratings for the rest of his life******). Music is one of the most subjective art forms out there, and the reviews are an indication of this. Look at how different media outlets and the dichotomy between ratings that an individual CD may recieve. There is no way that I would ever find myself in a similar situation with CD, because the basic role of a CD review isn't the same as the role of a videogame. When someone gives a Neko Case CD a shitty review I want to know why they formed that opinion and didn't like it.
With a game review I can pretty much guess why they have feelings about a game, because Videogame reviews on the other hand are almost always based on the quality of the gameplay mechanics, and that isn't something that could traditionally be questioned. In fact, that's all that game reviews are, consumer information. Nobody (okay, so no game reviewer) is going to question the quality of Halo 3, Super Mario Galaxy, or Imagine Babies! (perhaps lack thereof is more appropriate in the last example) because their quality isn't a subjective thing, it's completely fucking obvious.
The fact (admittedly, a fact that I made up on the spot) that reviewers 'can't be wrong', because their final verdict is handed to them on a plate is the main reason that so much stock is put into their opinion, by consumers and companies alike. Again, I don't mean this as an insult to gaming journalists (whom I admire) just that merits of an individual game are obvious, because they're based on factors that are incredibly obvious to anyone, especially someone who is 'trained' to write about them for a living.
At the same time as this is said, it's not an indictment on game reviewers (or indeed game reviews) themselves, rather the nature of video games and reviewing them. It's why people place such stock in a meaningless number and some slightly more meaningful text, it's why I was so dejected over playing a game that I eventually loved. It's the fact that gamers seem to value validation in reviews rather then enlightenment (including myself in the case of Assassin's) Hell it's why Eidos Kame and Lynched Jeff Gerstmann (maybe not, but I couldn't leave out that horrendous stab at a pun. )
*As I write more and more, turns out it is what I came to talk about. Funny Huh?
**Can you in anyway guess what I'm doing at this moment? No, not that.
***What, like you haven't though it/thunk it?
****Okay, there has to be a better phrasing then that
*****At least I think that was the gist. Maybe I'm thinking of something else. Oh, and I'm not for one second implying that music journalism is 'enlightened' for one second.
******Not at all a go a Mr Dylan, who is without doubt one of the better musicians of the 20th Century
In fact, it would be fair to say that I hated the game when I first played it, paticuarly surprising considering that I was a fan of Assassin's Creed way back when it was first shown. Not sure why, but something about the mix of Montreal, strange running antics and history captured me, and I pretty much gave them a sale two years the game actually became..sellable. But a week ago those two years of fandom where as pointless as the superficial.com without Hayden Panetterie (okay, so that's not true, I'll love that website forever). Why? Because I wanted blood, wanted blood like I want thesuperficial.com to post more Hay P pics*. Yep. I was pissed, and convinced that the reviews were right and this game was the abortion that Michael Vick should have been**. I was pissed that some idiot decided that the Metriod method of taking all your weapons away is a somehow rewarding gameplay experience (developers, here's a hint: It's annoying as all hell), I was pissed about a sundry of other small, rather insignificant details. In fact I was just generally pissed, although I was still playing it several hours a day (much to the determent of a Cactus Boogie tab, which was sitting there unloved).
This joyful tirade of hate continued until I was about 75% of the way through the game, as being rather close to completion I started working through my overall impressions on the game. So there I was, wandering through Damascus (with Rilo Kiley admittedly demoodingifying (made up word!) the situation) thinking of the torrent of shit that I was going to hurl at Ubisoft for playing with my emotions. I mean, this was going to be the 'You're So Vain' fuck you letter of 2007.
Then I actually thought about it,and there was nothing. I mean, I couldn't think of a thing that I didn't like, and suddenly my 'You're So Vain' was turned into an undying love letter to ruins Assassin's Creed
Now granted, this was before the game totally self destructed in the last hour. The whole 'religious piece of stone holding increbible power' smelt of bullshit. Not just bullshit, but the worst kind of bullshit, the kind that almost ruined my game experience. To have a story that bellowed the virtues of knowledge and anti-religious fever reversed with a plot device that was the complete antithesis of this idea was immensely disappointing. Surprisingly enough, I enjoyed the 'actual' end of the game.
At least I think I did. ' I think it did' Which kind of sums my my thoughts of the story in general, as I have no idea if it's my overly analytical nature or the story is really meant to be a pseudo-philosophical discussion on the nature of war and morality. However, I'm willing to give Ubisoft the benefit of the doubt, given that my thought processes generally fall between mildly and totally inappropriate and unintelligible, thus it's more likely that they are geniuses instead of me.
Speaking of unintelligible (and my thought processes/somehow being able to feel totally inferior and superior at the same time) Ubisoft are either brave/insane/both for setting a game set during the third Crusade. Perhaps it's me putting on my history major hat again, but does the average gamer really have a good understanding of the Crusades? I mean, that was a incredibly convoluted period in history, and the game just kind of throws you into the proverbial deep end.
Elitist whining aside, I loved the game, every aspect of it. To me the lead up missions to the assassinations weren't repetitive, they were preparation and a chance to give a backstory to who the folks were that you were going to unsheathe your blade into***. The world was beautiful, involving, and the beggers, whilst annoying as shit, added atmosphere to the game.
Yes, I've gone on a tangent, but I'm getting to my point.
Basically, whilst I loved the game, I had passed judgment on the game based on notions that I had picked up from reviews. They had a negative disposition, and that disposition transferred to me after reading the reviews. Now, I'm not trying to have a go at the reviews (or the reviewers themselves, and in saying this I should also say that it's commendable that a major game can be picked apart (especially in the current situation in gaming journalism). Rather, I'm trying to disown myself (and not for the first time, believe me) because I was so easily coerced (so easily in fact that I wasn't even aware if it!) into letting my experience of a game be defined by a review and not the game itself.
Now, obviously this is a problem endemic to the gaming in general, as even a cursory glance at a message board for a recently released game will yield more topics about reviews then the actual game. Now, I think it would be fair to say that this is a trait that is reasonably isolated to the videogames. My third point, which is slowly occurring to me as I write this, is that this is the reason that the Gerstmann/Gamespot situation is so heightened. It has shit ultimately to do with Eidos, Gamespot or any other company, it's really about the nature of game reviews. Ultimately (to at least myself) the question for the reasons of Mr Gerstmanns termination are irrelevant. Just the fact that it's the Tom Clancy 'could happen tomorrow' type of storyline applied to games journalism is enough to be worrying.
About a year ago the wonderful Chuck Klostermann wrote a wonderful article in the sometimes wonderful Esquire magazine about games journalism and music journalism, particularly a fellow called Lester Bangs, whom I'm assuming you have a vague knowledge of. The gist of this article (once it could be distinguished from the litany of advertisements featuring half naked men) was that games journalism is so infantile because it's nothing but the facts, the writing is formulaic and they are more consumer information then enlightened debate.*****
To elaborate in my own words, If music reviews were like game reviews then the rating would depend almost entirely on the technical proficiency of the musicians in question (leaving Bob Dylan with nothing but 2 star ratings for the rest of his life******). Music is one of the most subjective art forms out there, and the reviews are an indication of this. Look at how different media outlets and the dichotomy between ratings that an individual CD may recieve. There is no way that I would ever find myself in a similar situation with CD, because the basic role of a CD review isn't the same as the role of a videogame. When someone gives a Neko Case CD a shitty review I want to know why they formed that opinion and didn't like it.
With a game review I can pretty much guess why they have feelings about a game, because Videogame reviews on the other hand are almost always based on the quality of the gameplay mechanics, and that isn't something that could traditionally be questioned. In fact, that's all that game reviews are, consumer information. Nobody (okay, so no game reviewer) is going to question the quality of Halo 3, Super Mario Galaxy, or Imagine Babies! (perhaps lack thereof is more appropriate in the last example) because their quality isn't a subjective thing, it's completely fucking obvious.
The fact (admittedly, a fact that I made up on the spot) that reviewers 'can't be wrong', because their final verdict is handed to them on a plate is the main reason that so much stock is put into their opinion, by consumers and companies alike. Again, I don't mean this as an insult to gaming journalists (whom I admire) just that merits of an individual game are obvious, because they're based on factors that are incredibly obvious to anyone, especially someone who is 'trained' to write about them for a living.
At the same time as this is said, it's not an indictment on game reviewers (or indeed game reviews) themselves, rather the nature of video games and reviewing them. It's why people place such stock in a meaningless number and some slightly more meaningful text, it's why I was so dejected over playing a game that I eventually loved. It's the fact that gamers seem to value validation in reviews rather then enlightenment (including myself in the case of Assassin's) Hell it's why Eidos Kame and Lynched Jeff Gerstmann (maybe not, but I couldn't leave out that horrendous stab at a pun. )
*As I write more and more, turns out it is what I came to talk about. Funny Huh?
**Can you in anyway guess what I'm doing at this moment? No, not that.
***What, like you haven't though it/thunk it?
****Okay, there has to be a better phrasing then that
*****At least I think that was the gist. Maybe I'm thinking of something else. Oh, and I'm not for one second implying that music journalism is 'enlightened' for one second.
******Not at all a go a Mr Dylan, who is without doubt one of the better musicians of the 20th Century
Monday, December 3, 2007
Why Futurama and the Eagles are the same...Yet Different (That can't be as deep as it appears to be...which is not very in the first place.)
As it stands right now, comebacks (along with the inevitable disappointment that comes with it) are up in there in terms of popularity with garishly colored T-shirts and and sorry incidents involving teenagers expressing their thought in musical forms. Although I will admit to liking the first High School Musical (okay, so I generally don' t admit that, barring this isolated occasion to make some obtuse point), the rest of these things are best generally avoided like women of ill repute (an especially apt analogy considering the fact that High School musical was mentioned before it.) Yes, comebacks suck, but the more important thing here is why they suck, and in my opinion it's because they do nothing new. It's a long silence followed by the same old thing, over and over and over...Just like this blog
To pick the equivalent of the snotty, ugly kid that gets picked on, we can turn our head to classic rock pussies/underage lovers The Eagles. Now, I'll be honest, I enjoy the Eagles brand of laid-back music; I mean, I practically grew up with them (their music I mean, not in some kind of Four and a Half Men style sitcom) and their vocal harmonies are just to die for (said semi sarcastically...) Yeah, whilst I could go on backhandedly complimenting the Eagles all day, the more important point is their new Album, the Long Road out of Eden. Or perhaps more specifally, how much that CD blew. I mean, this CD really fucking sucked.*
20 years ago however, this would have never been the case. In fact if it had come 20 years then it would probably be breath of fresh air in an industry that had drowned in lyrca and about to be sent to Flannel clad heaven. But this is 2007, and in the 20 odd that years that the Eagles haven't been together the music word has changed, and they haven't. In fact, To say that the Long Road To Eden is classic Eagles is both it's most damning indictment and it's biggest compliment.
Futurama on the other hand is a much harder beast to pin down. But looking back it appears to have the opposite problem, as the Long Road out of Eden, it's just too damn reliant on new ideas.
Perhaps I'm not going to enunciate myself as well as I ought to be throughout this post, so let me be totally clear: Futurama was still as funny as ever, but the story was generally fucking terrible. Now, on with the confusion!
Although I may enjoy complaining about it, The Simpsons movie was an example of the way to do an animated movie well. It had the perfect mix of new insanity and old staples of the series. I mean, it was expected that Homer would fuck up and somehow redeem himself (although in a stupid manner) and that's just what they delivered, and what I feel the Futurama should have been done. To paraphrase Fry, people want the same old thing, new ideas scare them.
On the other hand, kudos for being nothing like Family Guy, and actually making the movie a cohesive experience, and one that sometimes stayed true to the franchise (actually, I would like that last comment revoked, the Family Guy movie was exactly like the television show, hence being 90% of the movies problem). Whilst there are obvious breakpoints in the story at 21 minute intervals they are never are detract from the viewing, and had I not had Windows Media Player keeping time I probably wouldn't have noticed.
What I would have noticed (eh? EH!?*) are the jokes that like they were out of place.
I understand that this is a movie, and thus they have more time to fill (letting jokes in that would usually be ignored, see where I'm going?) but some of the gags are horrendous are feel terribly forced. I am mean, does anyone find 2000 election jokes funny anymore (or even in the first place)? Or for that matter, was anybody really waiting for Al Gore's return? Or Barbados Slim? Or any other the other dozen or so characters that popped in for a few seconds at the expense of a joke? Sorry to blow on the Simpsons movies horn again, I feel that it had the perfect mix of new and old ideas.
That isn't to say that it's a bad comeback (or even that it's bad in general), just that for every good thing that was reintroduced, there was another that made me confused. Which brings me to my main two points: Why the fuck can Nibbler talk? And what happened to Fry and Leela? Why did they seem so intent on throwing out three of the main concepts that steered the original series ( the concept of time travel being basically impossible being the other)? It's not so much I have a problem with them changing these things, I mean, I understand that things have to change. It's more the fact that they changed without even acknowledging them. In fact, they they completely disregarded them in favor of a half baked story.
However, much like Chocolate Chip Cookies, I enjoyed it being half baked more then I probably ought to. I mean, it was reasonably good once I got over my initial almost fan boy like disgust, the story has some great plot twists, it was just the foundation that was the problem. It's still (at times extremely) funny and it still has an emotional resonance like no other animated series today. It's just that the road to the 'Resonance' promised land was a long, torrid, and at times downright stupid one.
This rather obtuse (and nonsensical) post is my rather roundabout way of saying that Benders Big Score didn't actually suck as much as statistically should have. Perhaps I'm not enunciating myself as well as I ought to be, so let me be totally clear: Futurama was still as funny as ever, but the story was generally fucking terrible
Okay, so 'didn't actually suck' is maybe weird way to phrase it, but I feel it's a pretty apt description. I mean, after seeing it, my initial feelings weren't of amazement or disappointed, but instead of relief. I mean, there's no doubt that it's a different kind of Futurama, but if its a good or bad turn really depends an individual perspective. But individual is an idiot, you're here to hear to my opinion and here it is:
*Meaning perhaps that the Eagles somehow preformed fellatio on themselves. How's that for a mental image!
**And to be honest, it's not that bad a CD. I mean, it's 3/4 quarters bad, the same ratio as good band members in the Eagles, so you know.
***Apologies, the only thing more annoying than a bad segue is some sort of pseudo-postmodern attempt at acknowledging that a segue was made**
****If these are true, then the third most annoying thing is somebody using the term 'pseudo-post modernism' in an ironically way
To pick the equivalent of the snotty, ugly kid that gets picked on, we can turn our head to classic rock pussies/underage lovers The Eagles. Now, I'll be honest, I enjoy the Eagles brand of laid-back music; I mean, I practically grew up with them (their music I mean, not in some kind of Four and a Half Men style sitcom) and their vocal harmonies are just to die for (said semi sarcastically...) Yeah, whilst I could go on backhandedly complimenting the Eagles all day, the more important point is their new Album, the Long Road out of Eden. Or perhaps more specifally, how much that CD blew. I mean, this CD really fucking sucked.*
20 years ago however, this would have never been the case. In fact if it had come 20 years then it would probably be breath of fresh air in an industry that had drowned in lyrca and about to be sent to Flannel clad heaven. But this is 2007, and in the 20 odd that years that the Eagles haven't been together the music word has changed, and they haven't. In fact, To say that the Long Road To Eden is classic Eagles is both it's most damning indictment and it's biggest compliment.
Futurama on the other hand is a much harder beast to pin down. But looking back it appears to have the opposite problem, as the Long Road out of Eden, it's just too damn reliant on new ideas.
Perhaps I'm not going to enunciate myself as well as I ought to be throughout this post, so let me be totally clear: Futurama was still as funny as ever, but the story was generally fucking terrible. Now, on with the confusion!
Although I may enjoy complaining about it, The Simpsons movie was an example of the way to do an animated movie well. It had the perfect mix of new insanity and old staples of the series. I mean, it was expected that Homer would fuck up and somehow redeem himself (although in a stupid manner) and that's just what they delivered, and what I feel the Futurama should have been done. To paraphrase Fry, people want the same old thing, new ideas scare them.
On the other hand, kudos for being nothing like Family Guy, and actually making the movie a cohesive experience, and one that sometimes stayed true to the franchise (actually, I would like that last comment revoked, the Family Guy movie was exactly like the television show, hence being 90% of the movies problem). Whilst there are obvious breakpoints in the story at 21 minute intervals they are never are detract from the viewing, and had I not had Windows Media Player keeping time I probably wouldn't have noticed.
What I would have noticed (eh? EH!?*) are the jokes that like they were out of place.
I understand that this is a movie, and thus they have more time to fill (letting jokes in that would usually be ignored, see where I'm going?) but some of the gags are horrendous are feel terribly forced. I am mean, does anyone find 2000 election jokes funny anymore (or even in the first place)? Or for that matter, was anybody really waiting for Al Gore's return? Or Barbados Slim? Or any other the other dozen or so characters that popped in for a few seconds at the expense of a joke? Sorry to blow on the Simpsons movies horn again, I feel that it had the perfect mix of new and old ideas.
That isn't to say that it's a bad comeback (or even that it's bad in general), just that for every good thing that was reintroduced, there was another that made me confused. Which brings me to my main two points: Why the fuck can Nibbler talk? And what happened to Fry and Leela? Why did they seem so intent on throwing out three of the main concepts that steered the original series ( the concept of time travel being basically impossible being the other)? It's not so much I have a problem with them changing these things, I mean, I understand that things have to change. It's more the fact that they changed without even acknowledging them. In fact, they they completely disregarded them in favor of a half baked story.
However, much like Chocolate Chip Cookies, I enjoyed it being half baked more then I probably ought to. I mean, it was reasonably good once I got over my initial almost fan boy like disgust, the story has some great plot twists, it was just the foundation that was the problem. It's still (at times extremely) funny and it still has an emotional resonance like no other animated series today. It's just that the road to the 'Resonance' promised land was a long, torrid, and at times downright stupid one.
This rather obtuse (and nonsensical) post is my rather roundabout way of saying that Benders Big Score didn't actually suck as much as statistically should have. Perhaps I'm not enunciating myself as well as I ought to be, so let me be totally clear: Futurama was still as funny as ever, but the story was generally fucking terrible
Okay, so 'didn't actually suck' is maybe weird way to phrase it, but I feel it's a pretty apt description. I mean, after seeing it, my initial feelings weren't of amazement or disappointed, but instead of relief. I mean, there's no doubt that it's a different kind of Futurama, but if its a good or bad turn really depends an individual perspective. But individual is an idiot, you're here to hear to my opinion and here it is:
*Meaning perhaps that the Eagles somehow preformed fellatio on themselves. How's that for a mental image!
**And to be honest, it's not that bad a CD. I mean, it's 3/4 quarters bad, the same ratio as good band members in the Eagles, so you know.
***Apologies, the only thing more annoying than a bad segue is some sort of pseudo-postmodern attempt at acknowledging that a segue was made**
****If these are true, then the third most annoying thing is somebody using the term 'pseudo-post modernism' in an ironically way
Saturday, December 1, 2007
The Simpsons Game: Debriefing
You know, for a franchise that by its nature is dependent on being self referential (to the extent that it's even started to happen with plot points)
it's kind of Ironic that
the most damning indictment of the Simpsons, is in fact one of it's own. Yes, it's like that episode where one of the Simpson men went to court and one of the Simpson women testified against them (I'm not sure if that has actually ever happened, but after 400 episodes I'm just assuming it has at some point.)
In fact, it's kind downright disturbing when a licensed game is funnier then it's current peer. Not just funny as in 'It's the Simpsons, so I have to laugh' but as in 'genuinely well written and funny' (although given up current habit of enjoying 'Everybody Love Raymond', it may be best to ignore of definition of funny).
Not just funny as in 'Hey, I recognize that's a ham fisted parody, so I guess its funny' but funny as in it 'takes what it's parodying and actually does it.'
In fact, The Simpsons games manages to do what the Simpsons hasn't done in years: Be a perfect satire of culture. Whilst the television series has gradually degenerated into a pretty limp impersonation of a parody (although still generally being funny) the Simpsons Game tackles the state of gaming culture head on, and does it perfectly. In short, it's what the show ought to be: Witty, culturally relevent ( at least to gaming) and funny.
Considering the history of Simpsons game, it's a surprise that this game is about as far removed from the word 'cash in' as humanly possible, especially surprising as it's coming on the heels of the movie. Speaking of the movie, is it possible that the game borrowed potential elements of the movie to use in the games storyline? Granted, I didn't finish the game, but the plot that I did see felt earily remenistent of one the potential movie plotlines. I'm not trying to imply anything (after all Mr Burns being a megalomaniac and Lisa being a hippy are hardly new plot points), but I'm just pointing it out.
On it's own though, the plot is, by and large, great. In fact, it could have been an episode and it would have been great. In fact, given the fact that it's reasonably short, the best way to think about this game is an interactive episode, albeit one where you can turn into a giant ball of Homer-Fat and chase a screaming Hans Moleman down old Evergreen. This notion is given creeedance by the fact that sometimes the game looks just as good as the movie, and there are enormous amounts of original lines for almost all the characters (along with some recycling of some of their better known ones.) In other words, in what is becoming a running theme for games in 2007 (or maybe I'm just getting more fussy in what I play and ignore more crap), Kudos on the presentation and story.
Gameplay ,on the other hand, is kind of a difficult thing to define (at least in terms of quality), the way I see it, I'm split between two ways of thinking, and in many ways it's the perfect analogy for the television show as it continues on unhindered by the fickle winds of time into it's nineteenth season (making it almost as old me, and as lame as using the phrase 'fickle winds of time' in an unironic sense!)
The First Way
The Simpsons is still good:
Sure, the gamplay is basically one long cliche, but the animated Simpsons had cliches as well, what depends is how you mould these cliches into your own beings.
Yeah, so it's platforming, it's been around for about 20 years, but it's still decent fun. The basics are done as well as you could expect, and even if this would still be an okay game, didn't have a global hegemon of behind it. It doesn't matter that you've seen it before (and done better), what matters is how it stacks up to the competition at this moment (And if I may say so. this game is The Simpsons to Crash Bandicoot's Family Guy)
The Second Way
Eh, Not so much
Whilst the early animated Simpsons made the cliches their own, the game simply acknowledges them via sarcasm laden Comic Book diatribes (is there any other kind?). It doens't fix any of the problems, or 'cliches as they are called in game, rather acknowledges them and keeps moving on with broken gameplay mechanics intact. Now admittedly, I laughed most of the time when the cliches popped up, and contrary to my previous statement (which was mainly for rhetorics sake) they don't really break the gameplay.
In this sense it's kind of similar to Date/Epic/Holy Shit you paid money to this Movie, as when 90% of their jokes seem to rely totally on acknowledging they are parodying something and not including any actual humor.
Now look at the animated series: It acknowledges that the plots are getting more and more outlandish and inane, but never does anything to rectify it.
My point: Simply acknowledging that something is bad doesn't make it good, it makes you look lazy and self conscious (two subjects which I could write profusly on, but this is not the time.)
Ah fuck, I'm half drunk and it's a fucking Simpsons game. What more can I say that wouldn't end in a mish mash of words and me crying softly into my blanket and pining for Blair off of Gossip Girl? Nothing, exactly.
it's kind of Ironic that
the most damning indictment of the Simpsons, is in fact one of it's own. Yes, it's like that episode where one of the Simpson men went to court and one of the Simpson women testified against them (I'm not sure if that has actually ever happened, but after 400 episodes I'm just assuming it has at some point.)
In fact, it's kind downright disturbing when a licensed game is funnier then it's current peer. Not just funny as in 'It's the Simpsons, so I have to laugh' but as in 'genuinely well written and funny' (although given up current habit of enjoying 'Everybody Love Raymond', it may be best to ignore of definition of funny).
Not just funny as in 'Hey, I recognize that's a ham fisted parody, so I guess its funny' but funny as in it 'takes what it's parodying and actually does it.'
In fact, The Simpsons games manages to do what the Simpsons hasn't done in years: Be a perfect satire of culture. Whilst the television series has gradually degenerated into a pretty limp impersonation of a parody (although still generally being funny) the Simpsons Game tackles the state of gaming culture head on, and does it perfectly. In short, it's what the show ought to be: Witty, culturally relevent ( at least to gaming) and funny.
Considering the history of Simpsons game, it's a surprise that this game is about as far removed from the word 'cash in' as humanly possible, especially surprising as it's coming on the heels of the movie. Speaking of the movie, is it possible that the game borrowed potential elements of the movie to use in the games storyline? Granted, I didn't finish the game, but the plot that I did see felt earily remenistent of one the potential movie plotlines. I'm not trying to imply anything (after all Mr Burns being a megalomaniac and Lisa being a hippy are hardly new plot points), but I'm just pointing it out.
On it's own though, the plot is, by and large, great. In fact, it could have been an episode and it would have been great. In fact, given the fact that it's reasonably short, the best way to think about this game is an interactive episode, albeit one where you can turn into a giant ball of Homer-Fat and chase a screaming Hans Moleman down old Evergreen. This notion is given creeedance by the fact that sometimes the game looks just as good as the movie, and there are enormous amounts of original lines for almost all the characters (along with some recycling of some of their better known ones.) In other words, in what is becoming a running theme for games in 2007 (or maybe I'm just getting more fussy in what I play and ignore more crap), Kudos on the presentation and story.
Gameplay ,on the other hand, is kind of a difficult thing to define (at least in terms of quality), the way I see it, I'm split between two ways of thinking, and in many ways it's the perfect analogy for the television show as it continues on unhindered by the fickle winds of time into it's nineteenth season (making it almost as old me, and as lame as using the phrase 'fickle winds of time' in an unironic sense!)
The First Way
The Simpsons is still good:
Sure, the gamplay is basically one long cliche, but the animated Simpsons had cliches as well, what depends is how you mould these cliches into your own beings.
Yeah, so it's platforming, it's been around for about 20 years, but it's still decent fun. The basics are done as well as you could expect, and even if this would still be an okay game, didn't have a global hegemon of behind it. It doesn't matter that you've seen it before (and done better), what matters is how it stacks up to the competition at this moment (And if I may say so. this game is The Simpsons to Crash Bandicoot's Family Guy)
The Second Way
Eh, Not so much
Whilst the early animated Simpsons made the cliches their own, the game simply acknowledges them via sarcasm laden Comic Book diatribes (is there any other kind?). It doens't fix any of the problems, or 'cliches as they are called in game, rather acknowledges them and keeps moving on with broken gameplay mechanics intact. Now admittedly, I laughed most of the time when the cliches popped up, and contrary to my previous statement (which was mainly for rhetorics sake) they don't really break the gameplay.
In this sense it's kind of similar to Date/Epic/Holy Shit you paid money to this Movie, as when 90% of their jokes seem to rely totally on acknowledging they are parodying something and not including any actual humor.
Now look at the animated series: It acknowledges that the plots are getting more and more outlandish and inane, but never does anything to rectify it.
My point: Simply acknowledging that something is bad doesn't make it good, it makes you look lazy and self conscious (two subjects which I could write profusly on, but this is not the time.)
Ah fuck, I'm half drunk and it's a fucking Simpsons game. What more can I say that wouldn't end in a mish mash of words and me crying softly into my blanket and pining for Blair off of Gossip Girl? Nothing, exactly.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)