Jesus.
After 5 press conferences, (and some good natured banter) it's safe to say the gaming and tech worlds had big info dumps today: new hardware and software, pricing announcements, previews, embarrassments, and even a few technical hiccups. This is the time of year when the next year and a half (not to mention the holiday season) start to take shape. Apple's annual presentation kicking off the WorldWide Developers Conference started just as Microsoft was beginning their E3 press conference, which may or may not have been an attempt on Apple's part to take away their thunder, but too many eyes were on Microsoft today, wanting to see if they could make up for their seriously lackluster unveiling of their new Xbox One console. For simplicity's sake, I'll start alpahabetically, because this is my blog dammit shut up.
Apple
Apple had a slew of things to go over, but the biggest were most likely the redesigned Mac Pro and iOS 7. The Mac Pro redesign looks great, and the power it's looking to pack is indeed impressive, but since it's a fall release, there wasn't much in the way of solid information about it. No specifics on specs, no price point; just a good look at the chassis and some general info about the processors and graphics units, along with some neat tidbits involving Thunderbolt 2 and multiple displays. Reactions to this have been expectedly mixed, but most folk seem to like the general design. It doesn't leave much room for expandability (though it IS upgradeable, just with custom hardware), but folks in the "pro" space don't need to "upgrade" their machines every year; the smart folks buy a seriously overpowered machine, designed to last several years down the road. Plus, with those Thunderbolt ports, I think it's designed more for external expansion (hard drives and the like) rather than internal expansion (graphics cards, etc.). It'll be interesting to see how reactions change as more info comes to light later this year.
iOS 7, however, is getting even harsher divides. It seems you either love it or hate it. Personally, I'm a fan of cleaner, flatter interfaces. Interface clutter is a big pet peeve of mine (which is why I don't typically play MMOs) but Apple did a pretty neat job of throwing all the commonly used stuff in easy-to-reach places, while getting rid of most of the skeuomorphic aspects, giving a more "smoked glass" look to the interface. Some complainers have whined about how they "stole the look from Android;" I've had the opportunity to use a few different variations of Android devices - none of them have looked even close to this new design. I'm betting it'll pop up a lot later this year, though. Basically, it's a moderate redesign, keeping most of the core functionality while bringing a new visual flair and theme to the new generations of devices to come. To me, it's fairly striking, and the forthcoming functionality that comes with it will be useful. Haters gonna hate.
Microsoft
Last Thursday, Microsoft unceremoniously dumped a bunch of severely unflattering info about the Xbox One's policies regarding used games, rentals/lendings, online DRM, family access, and other such things. As such, the internet went kind of berserk, and probably rightfully so. The policies basically come down to this: you don't own the games you buy anymore, and we'll be checking on you daily to make sure you remember that. When you buy a disc-based game, you are not buying the game itself, you are buying permission to play it on a certain number of accounts, with restrictions. There were many (more consumer-friendly) options available to essentially accomplish the same thing, but they were ignored, for whatever reason. This new info, paired with the reveal a couple weeks prior, left a bad taste in gamers' mouths, and as such, many were looking to the E3 conference today for actual information on games, as well as pricing and release dates.
They weren't disappointed... with the games. For the most part.
The cap of it all was the $500 price point, which is what the PlayStation 3 launched at all those years ago, and it didn't work. One thinks that their reasoning behind it is based on the "it does cool things with your cable box" thing; a feature that the majority of gamers don't really want, despite the potential usefulness of the features themselves. The reaction got bad enough that an executive got snippy during a BBC interview after the conference, when asked about the high price point and the slew of limits placed on the users.
Most of the games did indeed look pretty good; Titanfall and Below in particular were quite interesting, and many of the exclusives revealed looked fairly decent. I was quite surprised that Metal Gear Solid V might end up being a "next-gen" exclusive, at least for now. But the color of the restrictions placed on it's users and the high initial price point are tough pills to swallow for many people.
Sony
Sony was kind of in the opposite position than Microsoft for this E3; with only a controller revealed back in February, their last event concerning about the PlayStation 4 was focused mainly on games rather than hardware features. This time around they had to discuss the hardware in more detail (along with actually showing the console itself), as well as talk about games and policies. There were worries that the conference would get a little buried in jargon, but thankfully not only did games get a great amount of attention, so did the console itself.
Physically, I'm a little torn on the design; it's nice enough, but possibly a bit too similar to the Xbox One's design theme; basically, they're both black boxes that'll sit on your shelf or entertainment center. Nothing inherently wrong with that, I was just hoping for something that could stand out a little more.
The games they showed ran the full gamut: from big triple-A titles like Watch_Dogs, Assassin's Creed 4, and Destiny; to a wide range of indie titles like Don't Starve, Transistor, and Octodad. They didn't have a large number of titles to show overall - due to having to discuss the system itself a bit - but all were overshadowed by the last couple announcements.
Saving the best for (mostly) last, they went on record in front of hundreds of live people and several thousand streaming online that there would be NO restrictions on disc-based used games, NO restrictions on "lending" or renting disc-based games, and NO online DRM check-ins. Also, it would be priced at $400. Whereas Microsoft's pricing announcements were met with a few "boos," Sony got a standing ovation. Sony went out of their way to not only ensure that a customer's ownership rights for physical-based games would be protected, but to actually encourage the resale of games. For the time being, Sony has "won" this year's E3.
A few other conferences went out, most notably EA and Ubisoft. Good things were shown there; The Division was a big highlight, as well as the Trials Fusion/Frontiers reveal. That being said, there's still a full week of E3 to go, and I'm sure one or two things will show up there that no one expects. Here's hoping.
Monday, June 10, 2013
Tuesday, May 21, 2013
Xbox One frustrations (or, HEY MS SHARE IT IF YOU GONNA SMOKE IT.)
Lots of contradictions going around as to how used games can happen on the new Xbox One. This is a subject close to my heart and mind, as well as many others. The confusion here lies with the lack of actual real finalized information, but that's not the fault of the people reporting it, it's the fault of the company that can't seem to stay on message.
Here's a step-by-step synopsis of how these things are supposedly going to work:
1: You buy a shiny new game, most likely Call of Duty Ghosts, since that's... yeah. Whatever. You push it into that slot-loading drive. It begins to install the game itself to the internal HDD.
Personally, I'm fine with this. Installing games for consoles isn't really a new thing, and you can supposedly play them as they are installing. Storage space is an issue, of course, but 500GB is decent by console standards. As long as you can delete game data off of it, it shouldn't be too big a hassle.
2: As the game is installing, before you can play it, you must enter a one-time activation code that ties that copy of the game to your Xbox Live account. After that, you don't even need the disc itself anymore, just a semi-regular connection to the internet.
I can see the logic behind this, but it's still a bad idea. A majority of the country doesn't have what could be considered "regular internet access," not to mention the crappy ISPs who love to cut access for funsies. Also, DISPOSABLE BLU-RAYS BECAUSE MS CARES ABOUT THE ENVIRONMENT BUT REALLY NO SERIOUSLY THROW THOSE DAMN THINGS IN THE GARBAGE.
3: Weeks or months later, you decide you are bored with this stupid shooting game. So you (apparently) have a choice: take it in to a Gamestop (or whatever) and trade it in, or (somehow, specifics are non-existent) trade it in digitally over Xbox Live, gaining... some form of reward, maybe.
As you may be aware, this last one is where much of the confusion comes in. If there's a one-time activation code, how can one trade the disc in to a retail shop? How would MS even know that you've done it? And the poor person buying the used copy from said Gamestop: how do they play the game without the activation code? The only thing I can think of is a partnership with retailers (maybe in the form of a "key generator"), but no one's even whispered about anything like that at ALL. All this comes down to is an attack on used game markets and an implementation of some weird DRM.
Another question: say you want to bring that sweet, sweet new Forza game over to a pal's place, play it there? Well there are two options, the primary being you can bring your disc over there and sign in to your account on their device. Not unreasonable, though there's no confirmed limit as to how many consoles you can be simultaneously signed into at any given time (if it even allows more than one, for instance). The other option is somewhat more likely: you lend your disc to the aforementioned buddy, then go about your merry life, eating tacos and (potentially, anyway) having sexual relations. Your buddy puts the game into their console, and is prompted for an activation code. Since he doesn't have one (you already used it, remember?) they are then prompted to pay FULL MSRP (that's the full $60 price tag for those of you not knowing what that term means) if they want to play the game. So they're basically paying full retail price for "renting" a game from a friend. Granted, they get all the "benefits" of ownership of the game: account ties, disc-less play, etc, but if someone is only borrowing to see if they enjoy the game or not, that's not a great way to go about it.
Some of you will cry "That'sh what DEMOSH are for, jerkfacesh," in your whiny, lispy voices, and I would agree with you, but demos are a rare thing these days; developers can't justify the cost of making one (and yes there is a significant cost; it's not just "cutting out" a chunk of the game and wrapping it up) since they don't bring in as much in the way of "extra" sales.
More of you may say "If you want your friend to play it, then you should GO TO THEIR PLACE AND SIGN IN, OR MAYBE GIVE THEM YOUR ACCOUNT PASSWORD." Again, this would make sense, if one was not conscious of how BAD an idea that is. I know you trust your friends and all, but it is really unsafe to do that, with ANY account. If they're devices you own, that's usually alright, as long as you change the passwords regularly. But devices you don't own, or have regular access to should NEVER have your account information saved on them, EVER. Again, NEVER EVER EVER. It's just asking for something to get compromised. It's fairly common sense, which is why it's surprising that Microsoft is encouraging folks to do just that. Wait, did I say surprising? I meant NOT SURPRISING AT ALL.
What if your friend has a console, but for whatever reason - no wi-fi, not enough cables, evil assbutt parents - no regular internet access? No borrowed (or whatever) gaming for you, my friend. That means you'd have to bring your friend to your own place. Not a terrible idea, but not always a viable one. You might have to share the aforementioned tacos or sexual relations, which is... just... not a fun afternoon.
A lot of these confusions and contradictions would be disrupted if Microsoft would just come out and actually say what the actual deal is. Instead, they let people just say things, and instead of clarifying, they fire off a "we'll talk more about that later" brush-off. Not smart, especially in this day and age of Twitter, Facebook, and, well, the goddamned Internet. People have been asking about this stuff, specifically, for months. If Microsoft didn't have a clear answer to give, then they should've waitied to announce until they did. Giving incomplete information, especially when the missing info is what most people actually want to know about, is just bad PR. Ask Sony. Their conference was mostly well set up, had good solid info, and a pretty clear message after the fact, but lots of people went "DURR WHERE'S THE BOX HUUUR."
Not surprisingly, none of this stuff was covered in the reveal event itself. Adam Sessler even tweeted that the enthusiasm at the event was a little disingenuous. It served the purpose of getting the core of the hardware specs (mostly) out into the public, showing off the interesting (but frankly fluff) TV controlling and multitasking features, and the media hub stuff. Games were almost an afterthought; games themselves weren't mentioned until over half an hour into the conference. And the ones they showed... weren't great.
It seems obvious to me that they stuck to the stuff that sells well on Xbox consoles: EA Sports stuff, Forza, and Call of Duty. Aside from Halo (which did get a bit of a mention in the form of a TV show) those are probably the most visible names Xbox has to offer (Gears of War notwithstanding). It's a clear strategy, but not a very exciting one, particularly for core gamers, who are typically looking for new stuff to consume fairly regularly. This particular "reveal" strategy focused on franchised that both A) are annual and B) sell well across most demographics. The result is that this "new" machine feels almost exactly like the old one, in terms of gaming, which is what the majority of folks are going to buy it for. Sony at least tried; in fact, most of their games announcements (which were touched on early with demos and lasted the majority of the conference) were new IPs. Microsoft announced that they were working on 15 exclusive Xbox One games, 8 of which were new IPs, but they were nowhere to be seen, aside from a thoroughly confusing trailer for Quantum Break. If they're all going to be released within the next 12 months, today would've been the perfect time to announce or tease them. As a result, the conference (and by extension, maybe the console itself) felt rushed and incomplete.
Most of what's going to decide the validity of these systems is going to depend on their respective showings at E3. With games being the core of that convention in general, it'll be a decent opportunity for more information, clarification, and actual games to get shown off. (Or, in Sony's case, an actual console box thingy.) Sony has a lot to prove given their rough start with the PS3, but with their changing attitudes and focus on actual gaming features, they're in a better position than Microsoft is right now in the "battle" for core gamers. Microsoft is in Sony's position from last gen - the clear winner of this last generation, going into the next with more than a little smugness and "we can do whatever the fuck we want" attitude. If they're not careful, they'll end up where Sony was this last gen, too: fighting hard for second place. (Wait, they're going up against the Wii U? Nevermind. Second place is pretty much a given.)
Here's a step-by-step synopsis of how these things are supposedly going to work:
1: You buy a shiny new game, most likely Call of Duty Ghosts, since that's... yeah. Whatever. You push it into that slot-loading drive. It begins to install the game itself to the internal HDD.
Personally, I'm fine with this. Installing games for consoles isn't really a new thing, and you can supposedly play them as they are installing. Storage space is an issue, of course, but 500GB is decent by console standards. As long as you can delete game data off of it, it shouldn't be too big a hassle.
2: As the game is installing, before you can play it, you must enter a one-time activation code that ties that copy of the game to your Xbox Live account. After that, you don't even need the disc itself anymore, just a semi-regular connection to the internet.
I can see the logic behind this, but it's still a bad idea. A majority of the country doesn't have what could be considered "regular internet access," not to mention the crappy ISPs who love to cut access for funsies. Also, DISPOSABLE BLU-RAYS BECAUSE MS CARES ABOUT THE ENVIRONMENT BUT REALLY NO SERIOUSLY THROW THOSE DAMN THINGS IN THE GARBAGE.
3: Weeks or months later, you decide you are bored with this stupid shooting game. So you (apparently) have a choice: take it in to a Gamestop (or whatever) and trade it in, or (somehow, specifics are non-existent) trade it in digitally over Xbox Live, gaining... some form of reward, maybe.
As you may be aware, this last one is where much of the confusion comes in. If there's a one-time activation code, how can one trade the disc in to a retail shop? How would MS even know that you've done it? And the poor person buying the used copy from said Gamestop: how do they play the game without the activation code? The only thing I can think of is a partnership with retailers (maybe in the form of a "key generator"), but no one's even whispered about anything like that at ALL. All this comes down to is an attack on used game markets and an implementation of some weird DRM.
Another question: say you want to bring that sweet, sweet new Forza game over to a pal's place, play it there? Well there are two options, the primary being you can bring your disc over there and sign in to your account on their device. Not unreasonable, though there's no confirmed limit as to how many consoles you can be simultaneously signed into at any given time (if it even allows more than one, for instance). The other option is somewhat more likely: you lend your disc to the aforementioned buddy, then go about your merry life, eating tacos and (potentially, anyway) having sexual relations. Your buddy puts the game into their console, and is prompted for an activation code. Since he doesn't have one (you already used it, remember?) they are then prompted to pay FULL MSRP (that's the full $60 price tag for those of you not knowing what that term means) if they want to play the game. So they're basically paying full retail price for "renting" a game from a friend. Granted, they get all the "benefits" of ownership of the game: account ties, disc-less play, etc, but if someone is only borrowing to see if they enjoy the game or not, that's not a great way to go about it.
Some of you will cry "That'sh what DEMOSH are for, jerkfacesh," in your whiny, lispy voices, and I would agree with you, but demos are a rare thing these days; developers can't justify the cost of making one (and yes there is a significant cost; it's not just "cutting out" a chunk of the game and wrapping it up) since they don't bring in as much in the way of "extra" sales.
More of you may say "If you want your friend to play it, then you should GO TO THEIR PLACE AND SIGN IN, OR MAYBE GIVE THEM YOUR ACCOUNT PASSWORD." Again, this would make sense, if one was not conscious of how BAD an idea that is. I know you trust your friends and all, but it is really unsafe to do that, with ANY account. If they're devices you own, that's usually alright, as long as you change the passwords regularly. But devices you don't own, or have regular access to should NEVER have your account information saved on them, EVER. Again, NEVER EVER EVER. It's just asking for something to get compromised. It's fairly common sense, which is why it's surprising that Microsoft is encouraging folks to do just that. Wait, did I say surprising? I meant NOT SURPRISING AT ALL.
What if your friend has a console, but for whatever reason - no wi-fi, not enough cables, evil assbutt parents - no regular internet access? No borrowed (or whatever) gaming for you, my friend. That means you'd have to bring your friend to your own place. Not a terrible idea, but not always a viable one. You might have to share the aforementioned tacos or sexual relations, which is... just... not a fun afternoon.
A lot of these confusions and contradictions would be disrupted if Microsoft would just come out and actually say what the actual deal is. Instead, they let people just say things, and instead of clarifying, they fire off a "we'll talk more about that later" brush-off. Not smart, especially in this day and age of Twitter, Facebook, and, well, the goddamned Internet. People have been asking about this stuff, specifically, for months. If Microsoft didn't have a clear answer to give, then they should've waitied to announce until they did. Giving incomplete information, especially when the missing info is what most people actually want to know about, is just bad PR. Ask Sony. Their conference was mostly well set up, had good solid info, and a pretty clear message after the fact, but lots of people went "DURR WHERE'S THE BOX HUUUR."
Not surprisingly, none of this stuff was covered in the reveal event itself. Adam Sessler even tweeted that the enthusiasm at the event was a little disingenuous. It served the purpose of getting the core of the hardware specs (mostly) out into the public, showing off the interesting (but frankly fluff) TV controlling and multitasking features, and the media hub stuff. Games were almost an afterthought; games themselves weren't mentioned until over half an hour into the conference. And the ones they showed... weren't great.
It seems obvious to me that they stuck to the stuff that sells well on Xbox consoles: EA Sports stuff, Forza, and Call of Duty. Aside from Halo (which did get a bit of a mention in the form of a TV show) those are probably the most visible names Xbox has to offer (Gears of War notwithstanding). It's a clear strategy, but not a very exciting one, particularly for core gamers, who are typically looking for new stuff to consume fairly regularly. This particular "reveal" strategy focused on franchised that both A) are annual and B) sell well across most demographics. The result is that this "new" machine feels almost exactly like the old one, in terms of gaming, which is what the majority of folks are going to buy it for. Sony at least tried; in fact, most of their games announcements (which were touched on early with demos and lasted the majority of the conference) were new IPs. Microsoft announced that they were working on 15 exclusive Xbox One games, 8 of which were new IPs, but they were nowhere to be seen, aside from a thoroughly confusing trailer for Quantum Break. If they're all going to be released within the next 12 months, today would've been the perfect time to announce or tease them. As a result, the conference (and by extension, maybe the console itself) felt rushed and incomplete.
Most of what's going to decide the validity of these systems is going to depend on their respective showings at E3. With games being the core of that convention in general, it'll be a decent opportunity for more information, clarification, and actual games to get shown off. (Or, in Sony's case, an actual console box thingy.) Sony has a lot to prove given their rough start with the PS3, but with their changing attitudes and focus on actual gaming features, they're in a better position than Microsoft is right now in the "battle" for core gamers. Microsoft is in Sony's position from last gen - the clear winner of this last generation, going into the next with more than a little smugness and "we can do whatever the fuck we want" attitude. If they're not careful, they'll end up where Sony was this last gen, too: fighting hard for second place. (Wait, they're going up against the Wii U? Nevermind. Second place is pretty much a given.)
Monday, February 4, 2013
Skyfall is basically Dark Knight with a bit of DKR in there too.
NOTE: SPOILERS AHEAD. WARNED.
Movies are a tough thing for me to see, given my situation, so when the opportunity comes along to catch something good, under whatever circumstances, I grab at it. Skyfall was a great film, but had been slightly colored by the fanfare prior to my viewing, the more common remark being "it's basically this new Bond's Dark Knight." A telling statement, that.
What does a description like that implicate? To me, it is mainly defined by a few factors.
1) A villain who - while certainly quite deranged, sinister, clever, and ruthless - is also surprisingly likeable, mainly due to the actors portraying them. Dark Knight had the wonderful Heath Ledger, while Skyfall gets the equally wonderful Jarvier Bardem, who dives into "Silva" beautifully, even going so far as to actually wear a set of false teeth over his own to simulate how a mouthpiece (such as one used by his character in the film) would alter a person's voice. Creepy, devious, and almost always one step ahead, my only real nitpick is that we never really see how his hand-to-hand skills compare to Bond's, especially given that he's touted as Bond's predecessor, of a fashion. In the film he comes of as a brilliant planner, great with a gun, and honestly believes he's untouchable, which makes his rare looks of surprise much more valuable. His motivations are a bit one-dimensional - basically a fairly standard revenge plot - but that doesn't diminish Bardem's presence as a genuine threat.
2) A plot involving the villain knowing the ins and outs of who he's up against, while doing a fairly decent job of keeping his own methods and machinations out of the eyes of his adversaries. This usually does involve the "planned" capture of said villain, who then proceeds to demolish or otherwise diminish the protagonists' abilities, then cleverly escaping. It also tends to include the destruction (and subsequent moving or rebuilding elsewhere) of the protagonists' main headquarters or home. (Though in Batman's case, the demolishing of Wayne Manor happened in Batman Begins, with the new "basement cave" thing popping up in Dark Knight.) It's interesting that this is now a "thing" that movies do, and it isn't always done right. Skyfall's attempt is admirable, and certainly unique in places, but it does somewhat feel like it's just going with the proverbial flow. (This also worries me about Star Trek Into Darkness.)
3) An ending that drastically changes the status quo for the characters moving forward into the next installments. With the death of Dame Judi Dench's "M," it falls to Ralph Fiennes to take the mantle and run with it, basically bringing this version of Bond to a place similar to where the other iterations of the character lived for so long. Dark Knight did this by making Batman a fugitive, which he hadn't really been up to that point in the "Nolanverse," but in terms of the comics he has been for many years, through most iterations. In Skyfall, this is further qualified by the introductions of two other characters: Moneypenny and "Q." Both long-time franchise stalwarts, bringing them into the fold in the third movie of this "new" franchise sends a clear message that THIS IS A REBOOT PEOPLE. Given how the series has gone so far, it's doubtful that things are ever going to "go back to normal," at least in terms of the formula that the older Bond movies followed fairly tightly.
And for those confused about the concept of a "reboot," it means just that: fresh start, all stats back to zero. This series is NOT a prequel to the other flicks. They DID keep Dench on from her Brosnan days, but honestly I couldn't see anyone else doing that role; she did it so well, they decided to potentially destroy all credibility concerning the reboot to keep her. Basically, they almost broke the Bond universe to keep Judi Dench on their cast. And honestly, who wouldn't?
I do find it interesting that it took them 3 movies to firmly establish that this is a reboot. Things such as showing where Bond grew up hit this home hard. One of the big rumors (not helped by the continued casting of Dench) is that there is no "real" James Bond; that the name is a codename given to anyone who takes over the "007" designation after the previous agent assigned to it dies (or is killed in the line of duty, as is more likely given the job itself). But here we visit the family manor. The old groundskeeper (who is curiously quite good at killing armed secret agent types) calls him by the name "James Bond." The father's gun is stamped "AB," and the parents' grave has the clear inscription of "Andrew Bond." So, it's settled. James Bond is his actual name. Now, when another actor takes over (sadly, Craig has got maybe 2 more in him, I think) that may change. But for now, this is clearly the beginning (or third beginning, whatever) of a redesigned continuity. Star Trek did it, as did Batman, with Superman coming up. Why can't 007?
Other, more singular thoughts as follows:
The New "Q" - Ben Wishaw does a great job capturing the dry, superior wit that "Q" needs to have, while making it clear that his genius with a computer or gadgetry is countermanded by his nearly zero experience with field work, or field agents in general. I'm looking forward to seeing how they develop this character beyond the old-school "Here's your stuff, now bring it back in one piece" bit that gets referenced in his first scene. (Though his line about exploding pens is genius - itself a reference to Goldeneye, considered by many to be Bond's first "reboot," and basically a great big middle finger to those who want the wacky gadgets to come back.)
Moneypenny - I honestly don't care that she's black, so let's not mention that again. Established up front as a middling quality field agent (she did accidentally shoot Bond in a critical moment) she pops up a few times to kindle interest in Bond, help out in a pinch, and finally basically "retires" to desk duty as... the new "M's" secretary. Some things never change. Though I'm interested to see where they go with her, I wouldn't be surprised if she gets relegated to just the occasional flirtation and over-the-radio intel gathering.
Less Hand-to-Hand - Casino Royale had a few great hand-to-hand combat scenes, but there are very few in Skyfall. Lots of focus on chase sequences, gunplay, and vehicular carnage, but the few instances in which Bond gets up in someone's face are short, and brutal. That might've been their focus, or even Bond's focus, this time around: hand-to-hand needs to be quick and effective, so one can move on from it in as little time as possible.
Crippling the Hero - Another Batman comparison comes from Dark Knight Rises; the crippling (or near enough) of the hero, so their recovery is more important as the story goes on. In DKR, Batman gets crippled nearly halfway through the flick; Skyfall does it at the end of the first chase sequence, not even 15 minutes in. Most of the movie he spends recovering, both mentally and physically, while trying to find / fight this new threat, bigger than most he's seen up until now. It's an interesting dynamic, and handled well enough, it's just one of those "trilogy" things that happens sometimes; take away (or limit access to) the thing that makes the hero "special" so we can see how they do without it, thereby making them a better person. We'll see.
Overall, it was a great movie, worthy of the box office receipts it earned. It basically made "Avengers money" (formerly known as "Dark Knight money") and it deserved it. You can tell they worked hard to make this a unique entry in the series, especially since Quantum of Solace seemed kinda "by the numbers," a worrying sign for a rebooted franchise. So, hope renewed, I eagerly await the next one. It'll be interesting how these "new, yet old" elements will fit with the new direction that the character (and series) are going.
Movies are a tough thing for me to see, given my situation, so when the opportunity comes along to catch something good, under whatever circumstances, I grab at it. Skyfall was a great film, but had been slightly colored by the fanfare prior to my viewing, the more common remark being "it's basically this new Bond's Dark Knight." A telling statement, that.
What does a description like that implicate? To me, it is mainly defined by a few factors.
1) A villain who - while certainly quite deranged, sinister, clever, and ruthless - is also surprisingly likeable, mainly due to the actors portraying them. Dark Knight had the wonderful Heath Ledger, while Skyfall gets the equally wonderful Jarvier Bardem, who dives into "Silva" beautifully, even going so far as to actually wear a set of false teeth over his own to simulate how a mouthpiece (such as one used by his character in the film) would alter a person's voice. Creepy, devious, and almost always one step ahead, my only real nitpick is that we never really see how his hand-to-hand skills compare to Bond's, especially given that he's touted as Bond's predecessor, of a fashion. In the film he comes of as a brilliant planner, great with a gun, and honestly believes he's untouchable, which makes his rare looks of surprise much more valuable. His motivations are a bit one-dimensional - basically a fairly standard revenge plot - but that doesn't diminish Bardem's presence as a genuine threat.
2) A plot involving the villain knowing the ins and outs of who he's up against, while doing a fairly decent job of keeping his own methods and machinations out of the eyes of his adversaries. This usually does involve the "planned" capture of said villain, who then proceeds to demolish or otherwise diminish the protagonists' abilities, then cleverly escaping. It also tends to include the destruction (and subsequent moving or rebuilding elsewhere) of the protagonists' main headquarters or home. (Though in Batman's case, the demolishing of Wayne Manor happened in Batman Begins, with the new "basement cave" thing popping up in Dark Knight.) It's interesting that this is now a "thing" that movies do, and it isn't always done right. Skyfall's attempt is admirable, and certainly unique in places, but it does somewhat feel like it's just going with the proverbial flow. (This also worries me about Star Trek Into Darkness.)
3) An ending that drastically changes the status quo for the characters moving forward into the next installments. With the death of Dame Judi Dench's "M," it falls to Ralph Fiennes to take the mantle and run with it, basically bringing this version of Bond to a place similar to where the other iterations of the character lived for so long. Dark Knight did this by making Batman a fugitive, which he hadn't really been up to that point in the "Nolanverse," but in terms of the comics he has been for many years, through most iterations. In Skyfall, this is further qualified by the introductions of two other characters: Moneypenny and "Q." Both long-time franchise stalwarts, bringing them into the fold in the third movie of this "new" franchise sends a clear message that THIS IS A REBOOT PEOPLE. Given how the series has gone so far, it's doubtful that things are ever going to "go back to normal," at least in terms of the formula that the older Bond movies followed fairly tightly.
And for those confused about the concept of a "reboot," it means just that: fresh start, all stats back to zero. This series is NOT a prequel to the other flicks. They DID keep Dench on from her Brosnan days, but honestly I couldn't see anyone else doing that role; she did it so well, they decided to potentially destroy all credibility concerning the reboot to keep her. Basically, they almost broke the Bond universe to keep Judi Dench on their cast. And honestly, who wouldn't?
I do find it interesting that it took them 3 movies to firmly establish that this is a reboot. Things such as showing where Bond grew up hit this home hard. One of the big rumors (not helped by the continued casting of Dench) is that there is no "real" James Bond; that the name is a codename given to anyone who takes over the "007" designation after the previous agent assigned to it dies (or is killed in the line of duty, as is more likely given the job itself). But here we visit the family manor. The old groundskeeper (who is curiously quite good at killing armed secret agent types) calls him by the name "James Bond." The father's gun is stamped "AB," and the parents' grave has the clear inscription of "Andrew Bond." So, it's settled. James Bond is his actual name. Now, when another actor takes over (sadly, Craig has got maybe 2 more in him, I think) that may change. But for now, this is clearly the beginning (or third beginning, whatever) of a redesigned continuity. Star Trek did it, as did Batman, with Superman coming up. Why can't 007?
Other, more singular thoughts as follows:
The New "Q" - Ben Wishaw does a great job capturing the dry, superior wit that "Q" needs to have, while making it clear that his genius with a computer or gadgetry is countermanded by his nearly zero experience with field work, or field agents in general. I'm looking forward to seeing how they develop this character beyond the old-school "Here's your stuff, now bring it back in one piece" bit that gets referenced in his first scene. (Though his line about exploding pens is genius - itself a reference to Goldeneye, considered by many to be Bond's first "reboot," and basically a great big middle finger to those who want the wacky gadgets to come back.)
Moneypenny - I honestly don't care that she's black, so let's not mention that again. Established up front as a middling quality field agent (she did accidentally shoot Bond in a critical moment) she pops up a few times to kindle interest in Bond, help out in a pinch, and finally basically "retires" to desk duty as... the new "M's" secretary. Some things never change. Though I'm interested to see where they go with her, I wouldn't be surprised if she gets relegated to just the occasional flirtation and over-the-radio intel gathering.
Less Hand-to-Hand - Casino Royale had a few great hand-to-hand combat scenes, but there are very few in Skyfall. Lots of focus on chase sequences, gunplay, and vehicular carnage, but the few instances in which Bond gets up in someone's face are short, and brutal. That might've been their focus, or even Bond's focus, this time around: hand-to-hand needs to be quick and effective, so one can move on from it in as little time as possible.
Crippling the Hero - Another Batman comparison comes from Dark Knight Rises; the crippling (or near enough) of the hero, so their recovery is more important as the story goes on. In DKR, Batman gets crippled nearly halfway through the flick; Skyfall does it at the end of the first chase sequence, not even 15 minutes in. Most of the movie he spends recovering, both mentally and physically, while trying to find / fight this new threat, bigger than most he's seen up until now. It's an interesting dynamic, and handled well enough, it's just one of those "trilogy" things that happens sometimes; take away (or limit access to) the thing that makes the hero "special" so we can see how they do without it, thereby making them a better person. We'll see.
Overall, it was a great movie, worthy of the box office receipts it earned. It basically made "Avengers money" (formerly known as "Dark Knight money") and it deserved it. You can tell they worked hard to make this a unique entry in the series, especially since Quantum of Solace seemed kinda "by the numbers," a worrying sign for a rebooted franchise. So, hope renewed, I eagerly await the next one. It'll be interesting how these "new, yet old" elements will fit with the new direction that the character (and series) are going.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)