Going against many of my personal principles, I bought an Xbox One on release day. And I'm not sure why. In the lead-up to its release I'd essentially disregarded the console in its entirety. The bad press from the announcement, and Microsoft's painfully bad PR team screwing things up worse (if the gaming community has an issue with you, never patronise or insult them). They went into some pretty drastic damage control for a while there, and reneged on some of the pretty intense restrictions on the console, turning it into something a little more appealing. When release day was approaching fast I suddenly had an urge to get one. Because I'm an idiot. There were two main things that should have stopped this.
1: I'm a Playstation gamer. I prefer the controller, the system, the exclusives, the overall console experience. Originally I'd intended to get a PS4, but a major obstacle prevents that until next year. The damn thing is already sold out everywhere, with heaps of backorders and orders pending. Many people have orders that won't be filled until late December. I couldn't get one if I tried.
2. It's a stupid idea to buy a console on release day. This is a big one that most long-time gamers are familiar with, particularly with the last few generations and their focus on online connectivity. Console release days are notorious for having issues, with hardware failure, internet connection problems, missing features and a lack of games that takes maybe half a year to correct itself.
Neither of these points, which still weigh pretty heavily in my mind (moreso now actually) stopped me from forking over the cash to pick up the thing. And I'm still trying to figure out why I did. This blog is for me to vent a little.
~
There are a variety of emotions your Xbox One will make you feel. Confused, frustrated, aggravated and, worst of all, just tired. It will try your patience with its constant installs and downloads, it will frustrate you when things don't work and you have no idea why not. It will confuse you when, after getting the thing to work, you find yourself confused and lost, looking at unexplained features and not knowing what anything is or how to even work the console.
The Xbox One is, according to Microsoft, not merely a console. It's an entertainment centre. It's a hub for television, movies, music, internet and videogames. Microsoft can't make television or Blu-ray players so this is their move to challenge Sony in the home entertainment market. And it's an odd one. What you get is a Frankenstein-ish mishmash of useless features in a console that doesn't feel tuned for gameplay.
The major issue with the console becomes immediately apparent when you first turn it on. It needs to connect to the internet or it doesn't do anything. On first boot up the console immediately wants to go online so it can download an update. You can't skip it and you can't postpone it; the console won't even begin the initial set-up until it downloads the update. If you can't get or don't have an internet connection you can't do anything with your Xbox One. This is the deal breaker.
And that's the main issue I have with the console; it is so ingrained with online connectivity that it won't do anything without it. If you turn on the console while your internet is offline, you won't be able to view basic things like your profile or your achievements. In fact two thirds of the dashboard menu will be blanked out. Some games will just refuse to launch as, without an internet connection, they can't confirm you actually own them (an insulting mechanism that amounts to monitoring what players do). Xbox One's insistence on a constant, stable online connection is invasive and concerning, and the fact that it refuses to do anything without a connection is a troubling sign.
How smooth and seamless installs and downloads are is completely dependent on your internet connection and speed. If yours isn't great (like mine) then expect to wait hours instead of minutes as otherwise trivial patches take full afternoons to install. I had to move my modem directly next to the Xbox to get a good signal. Once I did things improves but I shouldn't have had to.
User friendly is not how I'd describe the Xbox One. Actually the console doesn't even bother trying to ease you into anything; once the initial set-up is done you're left to figure out everything for yourself. The console has no instruction manual, only a tiny 'quick start' guide that only shows you how to plug it in. I don't understand a lot of the basic user interface, or the features. What the hell is Snap and how does it work? What are all these odd pre-loaded apps and how do I get rid of them? When you trawl through the limited menus and eventually find the Help tab things get worse where instead of providing you with simple, reassuring instructions the console instead loads up an internet browser to go online and look for help.
The days of buying a game, inserting the disc and just playing are far behind us now. While last gen introduced the annoyances of patches and installs, Xbox One makes things abundantly worse. All disc-based games need to perform a lengthy install onto the console, some as big as forty gigabytes. These installs can take a long time, and even longer with patches. It's made worse by the fact that you can't check how long the installs will take, you can only guess and wait.
The console is full of so many frustrating and baffling basic oversights that it's embarrassing. You can't check how much hard drive space there is on your console. Instead the console will give you a message telling you if you're running out. This is a frustrating decision as it prevents you from actually looking at what's taking up the space, forcing you to live in the dark about how much space there is, setting you up for failure for the day you buy a game and find you don't have the space to install it.
So basically getting the console to actually work is a harrowing experience, one that will test your patience and your internet connection.
This was the first part, where I talked about the potentially harrowing set-up process with a game console that doesn't want to be a game console. Next blog I'll talk about what happens when you actually start using the thing.
Tuesday 26 November 2013
Wednesday 20 November 2013
Greater Theory of Television Comedy Devolution Over Time
After a few seasons, comedy shows that last tend to undergo a sudden metamorphosis. They start to go crazy. While they generally start quite normal, following most standard sitcom of comedy show trends and storylines, an enduring series will begin to evolve and transform into something else. When the ideas start to run out, many comedy shows resort to becoming ridiculous. Storylines get sillier, hijinks are more wacky and everything escalates all the time.
Sometimes this works. Case in point, 30 Rock. Tina Fey's runaway success began as quite witty, but the characters and events (while still fun) were relatively normal. After season 3, characters and their quirks had well and truly been established. So what was the next step? Take them to the extreme. Jenna went from being selfish to downright sociopathic, Tracey went from stupid and ridiculous to full on insane while Liz constantly found new ways to bring herself down. The show remained funny.
Other times, this starts to kill the charm a show had. I'm talking about Community. When it started it had a variety of characters who interacted in witty storylines, with clever writing that poked fun at cinema conventions and television storylines. The characters were mostly broad stroke caricatures (crotchety old man, hippy, smart girl, religious black lady) but they all had their own personality and characterisation and went through instances of character development. And then, by season three, all the characters - who were relatively normal people until that point - turned into total freaks. In particular season 3 became all about Abed's mental breaks from reality, turning a character who was, at worst, simply socially awkward into having fucking full blown Asperger's. Season 4 devolved completely into a series of 'wacky' storylines, pushing things further and further to the clever wit of the original episodes into a mishmash of hit and miss antics.
How I Met Your Mother, Two and a Half Men and Big Bang Theory also followed this escalation. Their first seasons of each show are quite mild compared to the bizarre lengths they started to go to. HIMYM in particular just took character's mild quirks and blew them up completely (Robin being Canadian became a huge thing, and Barney's entire persona). Two and a Half Men's first few episodes are as formulaic as can be, and astoundingly tame and inoffensive (it was literally two guys hanging out with a kid). When the Charlie Sheen love grew, the show got infinitely more racy and ridiculous, with the Charlie persona consuming the entire program. Big Bang Theory (I show I don't like simply because I don't find it funny) was about a bunch of nerds who had a normal girl move in to the next door apartment, then hijinks ensued. The first season was a stock standard sitcom, complete with limited sets, obnoxious laugh tracks and stilted delivery. The formula has pretty much stayed the same since then, only now all the characters are spastics, their quirks turned into full blown psychoses and aspects of nerd culture featuring heavily.
Some shows manage to avoid this, while for others this is just natural progression. Modern Family has avoided it completely so far. It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia has too, mostly because the characters were a bunch of horrible, stupid, selfish people to begin with, so everything escalation makes sense, following an insane trend that, remarkably, makes sense. It also helps that there's a bizarre sort of internal logic in the show, so when they go from pretending to be disabled to get free stuff to downright kidnapping somebody.
For me, it's often a sad sight to see comedy series resort to this. It begins to kill the quality. And while a few series manage to work this change to their advantage, most suffer for it.
Sometimes this works. Case in point, 30 Rock. Tina Fey's runaway success began as quite witty, but the characters and events (while still fun) were relatively normal. After season 3, characters and their quirks had well and truly been established. So what was the next step? Take them to the extreme. Jenna went from being selfish to downright sociopathic, Tracey went from stupid and ridiculous to full on insane while Liz constantly found new ways to bring herself down. The show remained funny.
Other times, this starts to kill the charm a show had. I'm talking about Community. When it started it had a variety of characters who interacted in witty storylines, with clever writing that poked fun at cinema conventions and television storylines. The characters were mostly broad stroke caricatures (crotchety old man, hippy, smart girl, religious black lady) but they all had their own personality and characterisation and went through instances of character development. And then, by season three, all the characters - who were relatively normal people until that point - turned into total freaks. In particular season 3 became all about Abed's mental breaks from reality, turning a character who was, at worst, simply socially awkward into having fucking full blown Asperger's. Season 4 devolved completely into a series of 'wacky' storylines, pushing things further and further to the clever wit of the original episodes into a mishmash of hit and miss antics.
How I Met Your Mother, Two and a Half Men and Big Bang Theory also followed this escalation. Their first seasons of each show are quite mild compared to the bizarre lengths they started to go to. HIMYM in particular just took character's mild quirks and blew them up completely (Robin being Canadian became a huge thing, and Barney's entire persona). Two and a Half Men's first few episodes are as formulaic as can be, and astoundingly tame and inoffensive (it was literally two guys hanging out with a kid). When the Charlie Sheen love grew, the show got infinitely more racy and ridiculous, with the Charlie persona consuming the entire program. Big Bang Theory (I show I don't like simply because I don't find it funny) was about a bunch of nerds who had a normal girl move in to the next door apartment, then hijinks ensued. The first season was a stock standard sitcom, complete with limited sets, obnoxious laugh tracks and stilted delivery. The formula has pretty much stayed the same since then, only now all the characters are spastics, their quirks turned into full blown psychoses and aspects of nerd culture featuring heavily.
Some shows manage to avoid this, while for others this is just natural progression. Modern Family has avoided it completely so far. It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia has too, mostly because the characters were a bunch of horrible, stupid, selfish people to begin with, so everything escalation makes sense, following an insane trend that, remarkably, makes sense. It also helps that there's a bizarre sort of internal logic in the show, so when they go from pretending to be disabled to get free stuff to downright kidnapping somebody.
For me, it's often a sad sight to see comedy series resort to this. It begins to kill the quality. And while a few series manage to work this change to their advantage, most suffer for it.
Wednesday 13 November 2013
It's all in the name
I like reading. I read a lot actually, and my personal library of literature continues to grow exponentially every time I enter a book store. But there's something that I struggle with. It's character names. For the most part I'm ok with them. If Bob, Harry and Steve want to solve a mystery, good for them. If Sally, Gemma and Mischa have to throw the best house party ever, that's fine. Foreign names are fine too. Miguel Sanchez and Ferrera Rodriguez can be stealing jewels from Princess Sheherazade of Russia and I'm perfectly fine with that. What I'm not fine with is when character names are stupid, nonsensical collections of vowels and consonants, or if they're named after objects or items.
I can't stand it when characters have stupid names. I don't like it when characters are named after things, and I can't stand it when their names are impossible to pronounce, I despise it when their names are something normal but spelt differently. It takes me out of the story and just makes me think about how fucking stupid it all is.
I'll give an example. Recently I got into the comic book series Sandman, written by Neil Gaiman. I was surprised at how good it was and how much I enjoyed it. Apparently he wrote some books, so the next time I went to the book store I looked for some, and sure enough I found one. I turned it over and read the back, to see what it was about. Then I calmly put it back on the shelf and left the store and never looked back. Why? The main character's name was Shadow. And I can't handle that.
I can't read a book where the main character's name is Shadow. I can't follow the adventures and misadventures of a character named Shadow. It's too much for me. It's too stupid for me. It sounds like the name of a character a thirteen year old would write in English class. His last name would probably be Darkblood or Hellsbane. He'd have long black hair and red eyes and probably had magical powers and some kind of sword. And a motorbike made out of bones or something. To me, it's juvenile. So unless the guy is actually made out of shadows or he can control them (in which case we're entering superhero logic of 'you're named after your powers') then I can't handle that bullshit.
This is pretty much why I struggle getting into Fantasy and Science Fiction. It's freaking anything goes over there, where you can add any number of random vowels to spice up a normal name.
I once started reading a fantasy book where the main characters name was Mykkael. You know what that is? It's Michael, but spelt in a stupid fantasy way. I had to stop shortly after (though that's mostly because it turned out to be a run-of-the-mill courtroom drama, but with dragons and broadswords).
In some fiction it's fine. Dune is full of made-up words and silly alien languages, but I can handle that because the main character's name is Paul. Fucking Paul. Star Wars? That's Luke fucking Skywalker there. Luke. They have normal names, although everything else has stupid bullshit, and I'm fine with that situation.
But other's don't. The Name of the Wind (a book that's basically a generic medieval fantasy version of Harry Potter, but with more violence and sex) has a main character named Kvothe, and while I hate him for many reasons (the entire book is just the author wanking about how awesome the main character is) the name is a big one. I also hate characters who have 'quirky' names because of how quirky they are, but that's another issue altogether.
I can't stand it when characters have stupid names. I don't like it when characters are named after things, and I can't stand it when their names are impossible to pronounce, I despise it when their names are something normal but spelt differently. It takes me out of the story and just makes me think about how fucking stupid it all is.
I'll give an example. Recently I got into the comic book series Sandman, written by Neil Gaiman. I was surprised at how good it was and how much I enjoyed it. Apparently he wrote some books, so the next time I went to the book store I looked for some, and sure enough I found one. I turned it over and read the back, to see what it was about. Then I calmly put it back on the shelf and left the store and never looked back. Why? The main character's name was Shadow. And I can't handle that.
I can't read a book where the main character's name is Shadow. I can't follow the adventures and misadventures of a character named Shadow. It's too much for me. It's too stupid for me. It sounds like the name of a character a thirteen year old would write in English class. His last name would probably be Darkblood or Hellsbane. He'd have long black hair and red eyes and probably had magical powers and some kind of sword. And a motorbike made out of bones or something. To me, it's juvenile. So unless the guy is actually made out of shadows or he can control them (in which case we're entering superhero logic of 'you're named after your powers') then I can't handle that bullshit.
This is pretty much why I struggle getting into Fantasy and Science Fiction. It's freaking anything goes over there, where you can add any number of random vowels to spice up a normal name.
I once started reading a fantasy book where the main characters name was Mykkael. You know what that is? It's Michael, but spelt in a stupid fantasy way. I had to stop shortly after (though that's mostly because it turned out to be a run-of-the-mill courtroom drama, but with dragons and broadswords).
In some fiction it's fine. Dune is full of made-up words and silly alien languages, but I can handle that because the main character's name is Paul. Fucking Paul. Star Wars? That's Luke fucking Skywalker there. Luke. They have normal names, although everything else has stupid bullshit, and I'm fine with that situation.
But other's don't. The Name of the Wind (a book that's basically a generic medieval fantasy version of Harry Potter, but with more violence and sex) has a main character named Kvothe, and while I hate him for many reasons (the entire book is just the author wanking about how awesome the main character is) the name is a big one. I also hate characters who have 'quirky' names because of how quirky they are, but that's another issue altogether.
Saturday 9 November 2013
Rebranding - the sad tale of Andy G
This is the sad tale of one man who is determined to become a media personality, despite not having a personality of his own. This is the tale of Andy G. This is a man who has endured in the Australian television industry, hosting many shows and having a presence on the radio. Yet he has no fame nor any admiration, he's just ignored. People accept that he's there, but nobody really cares. He has made himself something of a career in television, but he has never differentiated himself, never proven himself anything more than just another host. Though he has tried. Through the years Andy G has rebranded himself several times, trying to find some new form that works.
These are the big moments of Andy G's transformation.
Back in time maybe a decade or so, Australia had a big television event; the first ever season of Australian Idol. It was a big deal at the time as nobody knew exactly what it was all going to be about. The show itself proved to be popular, churning out instantly forgettable 'singers' who faded quickly. The show had a pair of hosts, two generic fellows who lacked chemistry and performed as you'd expect them to. One of this duo was a man who called himself Andy G. He wore generically hip clothes, talked like a generic hip host and acted in a totally generic, safe and forgettable way. Even his name, Andy G (or Andrew G depending on who was addressing him) was generic, like something a teacher would call a school kid if there were more than one Andrew in a class.
Eventually the hosting duo were cut from the new season of Australian Idol, so Andy G found himself without work for a little while. Then, attempting to capitalise on what little public clout he had from his little hosting gig, he tried to cement his 'television personality' status by hosting a game show. This time he wore a suit, opting to be seen as more professional and interesting. And it all fell down.
The show (The Con Test) was confusing. Contestants had to answer a series of questions individually, which would earn them money. Between rounds, before they were told how many questions they got right, they were given the chance to quit in which case, if they were indeed last, they would win whatever money they had earned at that point. If they quit but they weren't last then they'd win no money. If nobody quits between rounds, then whoever got the least number of questions right was eliminated and won nothing. So basically it was just a plain regular show where the loser gets kicked out after each round, unless some idiots thinks they've done badly and eliminates themselves. The show stunk badly. and was canned very quickly.
Andy G was painful to watch. Stiff and uncomfortable, he lacked any sort of charm or charisma, standing stock still with a sombre expression as he read out questions and attempted banter with contestants who had no idea what they were doing. It was clear that Andy G did not have the chops for public speaking, nor the personality to become a media darling.
Fast forward several years, and Andy G appeared again in a fairly regular series of annoying cinema advertisements posing as entertainment. 'Hoyts Insider (presented by Coca Cola)' was an annoying five minute presentation that appeared before movies when you went to Hoyts cinemas. While shilling Coke and a new camera in Hollywood studios, Andy also shilled whatever movies were coming out and provided single sentence 'interviews' with film stars. These things were annoying, since they'd play maybe two of them before the movie began. During this time two things happened, Andy G changed his name and grew a generic personality. He changed his name from his 'hip' wannabe celebrity moniker to his original name, Andrew Gunsberg. He also adopted the smiling, positive tool personality of countless other forgettable hosts and wannabe celebrities. His generically normal, hip clothes were back, and he looked and acted more like he did on his initial Australian Idol run. He was more confident, but then again he wasn't in front of a large group of people, only in front of the film crew.
Andy eventually made his way to the radio...in America. It's the reverse of the Arj Barker situation; nobody in America wanted Arj so he came to Australia (and we don't want him here either). Likewise, nobody in Australia wanted Andy G, so he went to America. His job was to promote all the most popular 'flavour of the month' music; basically anything that trended on the top twenty charts. His entire gimmick was that he was from Australia and therefore must have some sort of deep understanding of what music Aussies currently love. Again he lacked anything to define him, sort of just becoming another radio personality.
Then a few years passed and something else happened. Like many desperate people who are frustrated at not getting the things they want, he went through another metamorphosis. He's dropped the fake confidence from his time in America and regrew his stiff, serious persona from his failed game show days. He is now Osher Gunsberg, adopting a foreign name after having a spiritual journey where he found himself. That's not a joke, he actually said that. He's now going to present on a news show, providing his insights to the Australian public. And I can't help but laugh. It's a weird sort of change, where he's just sort of collapsed on himself.
For me this is just ridiculous. I guess because I've been exposed to him, and actually remember him from his early days, the entire thing just looks like a total farce to me. The constant name changes, constant searching for some way he can fit in to television; it's all desperate rebranding. And G has never found a way to get into the public's good faith, and its not through lack of trying. Though I feel he's trying in the wrong way. He doesn't have the natural knack for it; he doesn't have the charisma or personality needed to make people like him. And instead of trying to learn that, or even just finding a niche he can fit into he's just constantly rebranding himself in the hope that the next time he does it everything will fit.
The straw that broke this camel's back was the television ads we've had recently for channel 7, where some random guy runs around talking to the news anchors and actors from various shows. At one point he walks past Andy. Andy is talking to two girls (who are a head taller than him, he's tiny) and the girls are listening intently. And I thought to myself, 'Well that's a situation that's never happened in real life'. Andy G has never had anything insightful or interesting to say, and nobody has ever been that interested in listening to him. Yet that's the image he's currently trying to cultivate with his new 'Osher' personality. Insightful and interesting, with important things to say. But I'm not convinced. To me, he'll always be sad and lonely Andy G, trying desperately to fit in where nobody wants him.
But maybe I'm wrong. Maybe I'm giving somebody a harder time than they deserve. Andy G has been around for a long time, mostly in forgettable programs or radio stations nobody listens to. He's the sort of host you get when either your show isn't interesting or people are going to watch it anyway. He's an irrelevancy, something there to fill a function that isn't needed. And maybe he knows this. Maybe that's why he's constantly changed his personality, constantly changed his name, constantly searching for something that fits. Or maybe he's just schizophrenic and this is all just his various personalities fighting for control. That certainly would explain the name changes and complete personality shifts over the years.
These are the big moments of Andy G's transformation.
Back in time maybe a decade or so, Australia had a big television event; the first ever season of Australian Idol. It was a big deal at the time as nobody knew exactly what it was all going to be about. The show itself proved to be popular, churning out instantly forgettable 'singers' who faded quickly. The show had a pair of hosts, two generic fellows who lacked chemistry and performed as you'd expect them to. One of this duo was a man who called himself Andy G. He wore generically hip clothes, talked like a generic hip host and acted in a totally generic, safe and forgettable way. Even his name, Andy G (or Andrew G depending on who was addressing him) was generic, like something a teacher would call a school kid if there were more than one Andrew in a class.
Eventually the hosting duo were cut from the new season of Australian Idol, so Andy G found himself without work for a little while. Then, attempting to capitalise on what little public clout he had from his little hosting gig, he tried to cement his 'television personality' status by hosting a game show. This time he wore a suit, opting to be seen as more professional and interesting. And it all fell down.
The show (The Con Test) was confusing. Contestants had to answer a series of questions individually, which would earn them money. Between rounds, before they were told how many questions they got right, they were given the chance to quit in which case, if they were indeed last, they would win whatever money they had earned at that point. If they quit but they weren't last then they'd win no money. If nobody quits between rounds, then whoever got the least number of questions right was eliminated and won nothing. So basically it was just a plain regular show where the loser gets kicked out after each round, unless some idiots thinks they've done badly and eliminates themselves. The show stunk badly. and was canned very quickly.
Andy G was painful to watch. Stiff and uncomfortable, he lacked any sort of charm or charisma, standing stock still with a sombre expression as he read out questions and attempted banter with contestants who had no idea what they were doing. It was clear that Andy G did not have the chops for public speaking, nor the personality to become a media darling.
Fast forward several years, and Andy G appeared again in a fairly regular series of annoying cinema advertisements posing as entertainment. 'Hoyts Insider (presented by Coca Cola)' was an annoying five minute presentation that appeared before movies when you went to Hoyts cinemas. While shilling Coke and a new camera in Hollywood studios, Andy also shilled whatever movies were coming out and provided single sentence 'interviews' with film stars. These things were annoying, since they'd play maybe two of them before the movie began. During this time two things happened, Andy G changed his name and grew a generic personality. He changed his name from his 'hip' wannabe celebrity moniker to his original name, Andrew Gunsberg. He also adopted the smiling, positive tool personality of countless other forgettable hosts and wannabe celebrities. His generically normal, hip clothes were back, and he looked and acted more like he did on his initial Australian Idol run. He was more confident, but then again he wasn't in front of a large group of people, only in front of the film crew.
Andy eventually made his way to the radio...in America. It's the reverse of the Arj Barker situation; nobody in America wanted Arj so he came to Australia (and we don't want him here either). Likewise, nobody in Australia wanted Andy G, so he went to America. His job was to promote all the most popular 'flavour of the month' music; basically anything that trended on the top twenty charts. His entire gimmick was that he was from Australia and therefore must have some sort of deep understanding of what music Aussies currently love. Again he lacked anything to define him, sort of just becoming another radio personality.
Then a few years passed and something else happened. Like many desperate people who are frustrated at not getting the things they want, he went through another metamorphosis. He's dropped the fake confidence from his time in America and regrew his stiff, serious persona from his failed game show days. He is now Osher Gunsberg, adopting a foreign name after having a spiritual journey where he found himself. That's not a joke, he actually said that. He's now going to present on a news show, providing his insights to the Australian public. And I can't help but laugh. It's a weird sort of change, where he's just sort of collapsed on himself.
For me this is just ridiculous. I guess because I've been exposed to him, and actually remember him from his early days, the entire thing just looks like a total farce to me. The constant name changes, constant searching for some way he can fit in to television; it's all desperate rebranding. And G has never found a way to get into the public's good faith, and its not through lack of trying. Though I feel he's trying in the wrong way. He doesn't have the natural knack for it; he doesn't have the charisma or personality needed to make people like him. And instead of trying to learn that, or even just finding a niche he can fit into he's just constantly rebranding himself in the hope that the next time he does it everything will fit.
The straw that broke this camel's back was the television ads we've had recently for channel 7, where some random guy runs around talking to the news anchors and actors from various shows. At one point he walks past Andy. Andy is talking to two girls (who are a head taller than him, he's tiny) and the girls are listening intently. And I thought to myself, 'Well that's a situation that's never happened in real life'. Andy G has never had anything insightful or interesting to say, and nobody has ever been that interested in listening to him. Yet that's the image he's currently trying to cultivate with his new 'Osher' personality. Insightful and interesting, with important things to say. But I'm not convinced. To me, he'll always be sad and lonely Andy G, trying desperately to fit in where nobody wants him.
But maybe I'm wrong. Maybe I'm giving somebody a harder time than they deserve. Andy G has been around for a long time, mostly in forgettable programs or radio stations nobody listens to. He's the sort of host you get when either your show isn't interesting or people are going to watch it anyway. He's an irrelevancy, something there to fill a function that isn't needed. And maybe he knows this. Maybe that's why he's constantly changed his personality, constantly changed his name, constantly searching for something that fits. Or maybe he's just schizophrenic and this is all just his various personalities fighting for control. That certainly would explain the name changes and complete personality shifts over the years.
Friday 8 November 2013
Director Fight Club - Cronenberg vs Kubrick?
So something happened recently. In an interview, director David Cronenberg randomly smacktalked Stanley Kubrick, attacking the director's pedigree and taking particular disdain to his version of The Shining. Cronenberg called Kubrick 'commercially-minded' and asserted that he thinks he's a better filmmaker (more 'intimate' and 'personal', and he compared himself to Ingmar Bergman and Federico Fellini). While being a total WTF moment, coming completely out of nowhere, it has made me think about the differences between the two directors.
One was a perfectionist renown for the quality of his movies, many of which pioneered new film techniques (steadi-cam in The Shining and lighting by candlelight in Barry Lyndon). The other invented the body horror subgenre, focusing on physiological and psychological fears. Kubrick died just before the new millennium, while Cronenberg's output in the last ten years has differed considerably from his early works. Both have had their impact on the film world.
But who is the better director? It's probably Kubrick. Sorry to sort of kill any build-up. I mean, I love both directors, but Kubrick's films have a certain strength and quality about them and The Shining is one of my top ten favourite movies. Not saying that Cronenberg doesn't have his high points, The Fly is fantastic and I love A History of Violence, but for me Kubrick is the better filmmaker.
If it's an issue of quality, then you have to look at which films were better and which ones were duds. Kubrick's movies, even the weaker ones, still have intrinsic qualities that can be admired. The black humour and Peter Seller's improv in Lolita (coupled with the material) made it more interesting that it would have otherwise been. Cronenberg's duds are just duds. Existenz is a terrible film no matter which way you slice it (though the teeth-firing gun, constructed from fish bones, is pretty cool). Spider is dull, A Dangerous Method isn't as interesting or insightful as it thinks it is (and Keira Knightley is terrible in it) and Cosmopolis...is Cosmopolis. I have nothing witty enough to embellish that movie.
But there's that comment Cronenberg made against Kubrick - 'commercially minded'. Normally I wouldn't consider Kubrick's output to be termed 'commercial'. Sure, early films like Spartacus had widespread appeal, but most of Kubrick's output typically took a genre and made something more substantial, cerebral and confronting than the usual output. He made film adaptations of two controversial books, Lolita and A Clockword Orange. The Shining is a horror movie that subtly messes with the viewer, Full Metal Jacket focused on the marines' desensitisation through training, Dr Strangelove took the piss out of the Cold War and Eyes Wide Shut was a serious drama about infidelity, mostly comprising of random conversations and sequences (leading to the orgy). Then there's 2001: A Space Odyssey, with its opening overture and lack of dialogue for the first twenty minutes. Compared to most directors, Kubrick's output is not particularly 'commercially minded' or even safe.
Compared to Cronenberg, however, Kubrick is practically normal. While his more recent works are grounded in reality (History of Violence and Eastern Promises were about mobsters, Dangerous Method was about the relationship between Sigmund Freud and Carl Jung, Cosmopolis is...Cosmopolis), early, pre 2000 Cronenberg is a cluster of mindfuckery. Early on he did horror movies with something of an edge. Shivers is basically about zombies who spread through sex, Rabid is similar and The Brood turns concerns about child rearing into horrible murderous moppets. Some of his movies are just movies (The Dead Zone is pretty by-the-numbers), while others moved on to psychological and physiological horror. The Fly is one of the better known Cronenberg flicks, with Jeff Goldblum's body transformation being allegorical to STDs. Then you get to the harder stuff. Dead Ringers had Jeremy Irons playing twin gynaecologists who share sexual partners, Scanners was about psychics who could 'scan' other people with explosive results.
Then you have Videodrome and Naked Lunch. The former melded body horror with the fear of television intruding on real life (predicting reality television several years before it began). The latter is a bizarre semi-autobiographical detective film about William Burroughs, involving a living typewriter, giant bugs and Peter Weller shooting his wife to prove he's a writer. Both films are total mindfucks, throwing conventional logic to the side. As the total proof of Cronenberg not being a 'commercially minded' director is that he directed Cosmopolis. Robert Pattinson in a limousine having discussions about economics, philosophy and existentialism with a series of other characters for two hours. The movie is an exercise in how to be hated. I went to the cinema to see it, and I watched the other cinemagoers leave one after the other (by the first hour I was the only one in the cinema). It's not the sort of film that makes money, or is enjoyed, it's there to generate discussion amongst film academics (even if that discussion is 'that movie sucked').
So, in that sense, Stanley Kubrick could be seen as a somewhat more mainstream director than Cronenberg. Kubrick took some risks in the films he chose to make, particularly in adapting A Clockwork Orange and Lolita, but Cronenberg took larger risks with vastly different projects (most of which didn't pay off). This doesn't make him a better director, but compared to him I'd say most directors would appear 'commercial-minded'.
In the end though Kubrick is better, and I'll fight anybody who says otherwise.
One was a perfectionist renown for the quality of his movies, many of which pioneered new film techniques (steadi-cam in The Shining and lighting by candlelight in Barry Lyndon). The other invented the body horror subgenre, focusing on physiological and psychological fears. Kubrick died just before the new millennium, while Cronenberg's output in the last ten years has differed considerably from his early works. Both have had their impact on the film world.
But who is the better director? It's probably Kubrick. Sorry to sort of kill any build-up. I mean, I love both directors, but Kubrick's films have a certain strength and quality about them and The Shining is one of my top ten favourite movies. Not saying that Cronenberg doesn't have his high points, The Fly is fantastic and I love A History of Violence, but for me Kubrick is the better filmmaker.
If it's an issue of quality, then you have to look at which films were better and which ones were duds. Kubrick's movies, even the weaker ones, still have intrinsic qualities that can be admired. The black humour and Peter Seller's improv in Lolita (coupled with the material) made it more interesting that it would have otherwise been. Cronenberg's duds are just duds. Existenz is a terrible film no matter which way you slice it (though the teeth-firing gun, constructed from fish bones, is pretty cool). Spider is dull, A Dangerous Method isn't as interesting or insightful as it thinks it is (and Keira Knightley is terrible in it) and Cosmopolis...is Cosmopolis. I have nothing witty enough to embellish that movie.
But there's that comment Cronenberg made against Kubrick - 'commercially minded'. Normally I wouldn't consider Kubrick's output to be termed 'commercial'. Sure, early films like Spartacus had widespread appeal, but most of Kubrick's output typically took a genre and made something more substantial, cerebral and confronting than the usual output. He made film adaptations of two controversial books, Lolita and A Clockword Orange. The Shining is a horror movie that subtly messes with the viewer, Full Metal Jacket focused on the marines' desensitisation through training, Dr Strangelove took the piss out of the Cold War and Eyes Wide Shut was a serious drama about infidelity, mostly comprising of random conversations and sequences (leading to the orgy). Then there's 2001: A Space Odyssey, with its opening overture and lack of dialogue for the first twenty minutes. Compared to most directors, Kubrick's output is not particularly 'commercially minded' or even safe.
Compared to Cronenberg, however, Kubrick is practically normal. While his more recent works are grounded in reality (History of Violence and Eastern Promises were about mobsters, Dangerous Method was about the relationship between Sigmund Freud and Carl Jung, Cosmopolis is...Cosmopolis), early, pre 2000 Cronenberg is a cluster of mindfuckery. Early on he did horror movies with something of an edge. Shivers is basically about zombies who spread through sex, Rabid is similar and The Brood turns concerns about child rearing into horrible murderous moppets. Some of his movies are just movies (The Dead Zone is pretty by-the-numbers), while others moved on to psychological and physiological horror. The Fly is one of the better known Cronenberg flicks, with Jeff Goldblum's body transformation being allegorical to STDs. Then you get to the harder stuff. Dead Ringers had Jeremy Irons playing twin gynaecologists who share sexual partners, Scanners was about psychics who could 'scan' other people with explosive results.
Then you have Videodrome and Naked Lunch. The former melded body horror with the fear of television intruding on real life (predicting reality television several years before it began). The latter is a bizarre semi-autobiographical detective film about William Burroughs, involving a living typewriter, giant bugs and Peter Weller shooting his wife to prove he's a writer. Both films are total mindfucks, throwing conventional logic to the side. As the total proof of Cronenberg not being a 'commercially minded' director is that he directed Cosmopolis. Robert Pattinson in a limousine having discussions about economics, philosophy and existentialism with a series of other characters for two hours. The movie is an exercise in how to be hated. I went to the cinema to see it, and I watched the other cinemagoers leave one after the other (by the first hour I was the only one in the cinema). It's not the sort of film that makes money, or is enjoyed, it's there to generate discussion amongst film academics (even if that discussion is 'that movie sucked').
So, in that sense, Stanley Kubrick could be seen as a somewhat more mainstream director than Cronenberg. Kubrick took some risks in the films he chose to make, particularly in adapting A Clockwork Orange and Lolita, but Cronenberg took larger risks with vastly different projects (most of which didn't pay off). This doesn't make him a better director, but compared to him I'd say most directors would appear 'commercial-minded'.
In the end though Kubrick is better, and I'll fight anybody who says otherwise.
The Triumphant Return/Beginning/Whatever
Boom.
For about the fourth time in six years I'm trying this blog business again. My blogs have always failed because I just don't use them. I'll do one or two posts then something shiny will catch my attention and I'll just forget about it completely. Even now I can feel my attention waning.
Anyway I did have a consistent blog I updated almost weekly over on Gamespot, but then retards took control and changed the website (making blogging irrelevant) and now that blog, like the rest of that shitty website, has died. Since I no longer have an outlet to use for bitching about games, I'm going to move here, where there's no filter against profanity.
Seriously, fuck Gamespot. The site was fine when I joined back in 2008, but then corporate meddling and a desire to be 'modern' caused the site to undertake a drastic makeover where it became an ugly amalgamation of every shitty feature from other gaming sites on the web. Everything is connected to twitter and facebook, there's fucking hashtags and full page ads. The articles and reviews have also seen a massive drop in quality, with click-bait articles and sensationalist headlines plaguing the site.
So fuck that. I'm here now, where I belong. While initially this was meant to be a movie review blog, this is going to become an overall bitching and complaining blog too, where I'll complain about things and make harsh criticisms against people who don't really deserve it. Because this is the internet and you can write anything on here, although the secret service is monitoring for shifty behaviour.
Though this was harder than it should have been, since Google is fucking retarded as well. It took me longer than it should have to find how to edit things. The 'help' page doesn't offer any help. This is all a big fucking pain.
So look forward to stuff.
For about the fourth time in six years I'm trying this blog business again. My blogs have always failed because I just don't use them. I'll do one or two posts then something shiny will catch my attention and I'll just forget about it completely. Even now I can feel my attention waning.
Anyway I did have a consistent blog I updated almost weekly over on Gamespot, but then retards took control and changed the website (making blogging irrelevant) and now that blog, like the rest of that shitty website, has died. Since I no longer have an outlet to use for bitching about games, I'm going to move here, where there's no filter against profanity.
Seriously, fuck Gamespot. The site was fine when I joined back in 2008, but then corporate meddling and a desire to be 'modern' caused the site to undertake a drastic makeover where it became an ugly amalgamation of every shitty feature from other gaming sites on the web. Everything is connected to twitter and facebook, there's fucking hashtags and full page ads. The articles and reviews have also seen a massive drop in quality, with click-bait articles and sensationalist headlines plaguing the site.
So fuck that. I'm here now, where I belong. While initially this was meant to be a movie review blog, this is going to become an overall bitching and complaining blog too, where I'll complain about things and make harsh criticisms against people who don't really deserve it. Because this is the internet and you can write anything on here, although the secret service is monitoring for shifty behaviour.
Though this was harder than it should have been, since Google is fucking retarded as well. It took me longer than it should have to find how to edit things. The 'help' page doesn't offer any help. This is all a big fucking pain.
So look forward to stuff.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)