Random thoughts on most things from A. M. Craig.

Showing posts with label Robots. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Robots. Show all posts

Monday, June 29, 2009

NOT a Review: Why I won't be seeing "Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen"

If you ever read my blog, you know that I love movies and robots. The casual observer might think I'd be head-over-heels for the new Transformers movie. But I can't and won't.

Because I saw the first one.

Because it is universally hated by everybody who cares what they see, but widely accepted by those trying to kill $8 and a weekend night with nothing else at the box office.

Because of this hysterically bad clip. This is what the PR people released as a solid representation of the film, to whet your appetite. An RC car robot doing his best Joe Pesci impression. Somehow, I'm not really hungry for that.

Because Jordan couldn't even write a review (and his reveiw for "17 Again" was spot on.

I imagine the greatest entertainment value available from this movie is indirect; i.e. reading the hysterical reviews. <=NOTE: The last link has some offensive (but well deserved) comparison to a baser genre of film, if you take my meaning.

But most of all, because I don't want to support it.

The following was written by a friend of a friend.
"Transformers 2: Revenge of the Fallen" and its predecessor, aside from being devoid of any substantive narrative quality, are pointlessly violent, meaninglessly vulgar, and shockingly sexed-up movies despicably marketed to children. Ads for the film run during virtually every commercial break on Nickelodeon. Burger King is featuring Transformers kids' meals. Advertisements for myriad toys feature bright-eyed, curly headed tots. It is even included on Nick Junior's "Flicks for Kids" list! All this in spite of the production's claims that the target demographic is older teenagers and adults. My nephews (ages 4, 7, and 9) knew the exact date the film would be released long before the slated date. And they watch "Sponge Bob" and "iCarly", not Spike, Adult Swim or even major networks like ABC and Fox. The youngster networks run ads that, conveniently, skip the pin-up-esque shot of Megan Fox straddling a motorcycle in barely-there shorts.

KidsInMind.com, an online resource for "ratings that work" rated the film as follows on a 10 points scale: Sex/Nudity-6, Violence/Gore-7, Profanity-5. Compare to other action films with clearly much older target demographics: "Terminator Salvation", "X-Men Origins", "The Dark Knight", "Iron Man", etc. Each one listed rated lower in both profanity and sexual content though were comparable in violence. "Transformers" was even rated on par in sexual content with "Ghosts of Girlfriends Past", an inuendo-filled film, incidentally, marketed to adults. "Transformers" rated higher in sex/nudity than "Casino Royale". Reflect on that for a minute: a James Bond film ranks lower in sex/nudity than a film based on a Saturday morning cartoon!

I do not attack responsible and meaningful depictions of violence and sexuality or such use of profanity, but this film is irresponsible and superficial. Add the advertising of a more mature film to young children and you can tack on "exploitative" to the list of adjectives. This production does not deserve a contribution from you at the box office. Your admission ticket tells Bay and Spielberg that you think this is okay and you'll keep stuffing their pockets for being skeez bags.
So I'll never see it. Out of principle, I won't see it in the theater. And when the special effects glut is on a smaller screen home viewing, what's the point? Besides, I watched part of the first Transformers on a TV that displayed twice the regular frame rate. The special effects failed to be impressive at that picture clarity. It looked uncomfortably like a video game. No fun at that point.

Tuesday, June 02, 2009

Dreamy

I stopped recording my dreams, so I don't remember them as well as I used to. But I appreciate how often I seem to show up in other peoples' dreams.

Got this message from a friend earlier today.

Had another weird dream about you. We were at graduation and your G1 turned into a Transformer. And then we were on a roller coaster.

Well, that about sums it up. That's the perfect day.

Friday, December 19, 2008

Teddy

NOTE: I'm really sorry about the auto-playing video, but it's the only way.

Well, another piece of Spielberg fiction is being brought to life at M.I.T.

Is it truly strange that I'm pretty acquinted with the work of this guy's faculty mentor, Dr. Cynthia Breazeal?



How similar is that going to be to Teddy from the popularly despised A.I.? I think I was one of...four people; I've counted four people who liked that movie.



I honestly wasn't crazy about the storytelling in A.I., but I...just...love...robots.



Stan Winston, R.I.P.
I wouldn't mind a toy like that bear. Toys that play back. It'd be fun.

And really, it's only a matter of time before that's a reality
.

Monday, December 15, 2008

Finals

One term paper down, a couple more and a couple tests to go.

To hold you over till I can start blogging again, here is the paper I wrote analyzing and comparing WALL•E and *batteries not included.

Lovable Little Tin Men

The permutations of science fiction are almost as many as the branches of actual scientific study. There are experiments gone wrong, time travel, alternate history , post apocalyptical, cyber-punk, steam-punk, hard, soft, and the tried and true space adventure, just to name a few. These sub-genres intersect and overlap with themselves and other genres altogether, and they’ll continue to do so until their conventions are entirely absorbed by fresher forms. I’ll be discussing and analyzing a specific subset in the sci-fi realm, but isn’t found on the shelf of the sci-fi isle in your local video rental store. While the uncanny, inhuman, slimy space alien may be the norm for much of sci-fi, I’ll be looking at the family friendly lovable little robot who could, found in both WALL•E and *batteries not included.

Pixar’s WALL•E follows the diminutive sole survivor from a fleet of clean-up robots, meant to make the world livable again after hyper-consumerism leaves the landscape a trash laden wasteland. His role is made clear to us very early on, with opening shots of the towering trash heaps, and our protagonist dutifully rolling around, compacting all the detritus. But this worn rust box is surprisingly likable. He exhibits curiosity, playfulness, and kindness. He collects whatever interests him from the piles left by Earth’s former inhabitants, things as quirky as sporks, lawn gnomes, and Rubik’s cubes. He sings and dances to Hello Dolly! on VHS cassette. He has a panic when he thinks he’s literally run over his one and only friend in the world, his cockroach sidekick. He even shows some romanticism before the romantic interest is even introduced, as he gazes longingly at the stars. He is, in fact, everything a good person would aim to be.

In 1987 a similar set of characters were introduced. Steven Spielberg produced *batteries not included, but it was a then unknown screen writer who provided one of the most tangible real-world links to the 2008 hit WALL•E. Brad Bird must have some affinity for robots. With almost half of his writing credits featuring a remarkable robot somewhere in the story, it shouldn’t be surprising to see his name in the writing credits of *batteries not included. WALL•E was written and directed by Andrew Stanton, but Bird’s The Incredibles came out only a few short years before from the very same studio.

*batteries not included centers around a decaying apartment complex in New York City. The tenants are few, most having been bribed or otherwise coerced into moving. Those left include an aged couple. The husband manages a diner on the ground floor. His wife’s dementia makes it all the more difficult for him maintain his own sanity. There is also a retired and mostly mute heavyweight boxer, a poor artist, and a single mother-to-be. By themselves, they seem only a minor obstacle for a big time real estate developer and his hired thugs, who plan to erect a series of skyscrapers in the very same spot. It’s only a matter of days before their brick home (and whole world) is leveled to make way for modern glass and steel obelisks.

Then drops from the sky, with no explanation, two of the most unlikely saviors. In true deus ex machina fashion, two tiny alien robots come to start a family and save the defenseless of New York. They manage to scare away the thugs, enliven the almost defeated tenants, and ultimately rebuild the entire structure from rubble. Throughout all this, they teach the tenants (and the audience) a thing or two about family, children, and love.

Wait, family, children, and love? We are talking about space alien robots, right?

What separates *batteries not included and WALL•E from their contemporaries in sci-fi is their family centered nature. They are more than simply family friendly films, though they certainly lack any offensive content. Each is a family centered film thematically, despite having as the central character what on the surface would seem the least lovable, least human thing imaginable; a cold hunk of metal.

First things first, how is a little piece of almost mute metal so likable? Nobody in reality has any particular love for their toaster, why should we care for a trash-compactor on wheels? Or why should we care about flying saucers outside of an academic interest? Normally, we wouldn’t. But animators and special effects artists have done an effective job of approximating the most lovable thing around, children and babies. Our robots mimic their behavior, with each robot moving dynamically and sometimes unpredictably, with lights adding to their movement, and most importantly, by having expressive eyes. When you put eyes on that toaster, you have the beginnings of a Disney classic, evidenced by The Brave Little Toaster, also from 1987.

For these characters, the eyes are less for them to see than for us to see them. Scott McCloud argues in Understanding Comics that we as humans not only see ourselves in everything around us, but we often can’t help but see ourselves. This is undeniably the situation whenever something has what we perceive as eyes. Whether it’s an electrical outlet or a potato, it instantly becomes recognizable as an individual entity once it has eyes.

A Yiddish proverb says the eyes are the mirror of the soul. The character designers of *batteries not included and WALL•E must have taken this to heart. Andrew Stanton said his inspiration for the look of WALL•E came when he was at a baseball game, and noticed that the binoculars he was holding seemed almost like a pair of big melancholy eyes. WALL•E‘s eyes are actually the only thing that constitute his face. The same can be said for his love interest EvE. In fact, almost all of the likable robots in WALL•E have discernable eyes. The more expressive they are, the more lovable the character is. If the character is someone we should be wary of, they will have only one eye, like AUTO or GO-4, or no eyes, like SECUR-T. In *batteries not included, the eyes are the only thing that make the saucers distinguishable as entities rather than vessels. They open and close with mechanical eyelids and change colors to show change in mood. Again, the eyes aren’t part of the face, they are the face, and our mirror to the soul on what would otherwise be totally soulless.
The importance of the eyes is also evident near the climax of each film. When WALL•E is damaged by the collapsing pillar on the Lido Deck, the damage is most clear on his left eye. When Carlos swings an ax at the small saucer in *batteries not included, he hits it, not on the back, not underneath, but right on the eye. Something dead is necessarily something soulless, and if the film maker wants to communicate a life-threat to these mechanical characters, he has to destroy their eyes, our mirror to the soul. But don’t worry, they get repaired. These are family films, after all.

So we’ve established that our characters have eyes, and thus, a soul. What does a film maker do with that? It seems they tell stories about family, children, and love, with our rust-bucket protagonists facilitating the examples.

From the moment WALL•E lays eyes on EVE, we can tell it’s love at first sight. He dotes on her and pridelessly pursues her affection in return. His devotion takes him to outer space when she is retrieved, and there we find more examples of family and love, WALL•E playing both leading man and matchmaker. He accidentally knocks John off his hover-chair, and makes a new friend. He unintentionally jolts myopic Mary from her encompassing display. It’s WALL•E’s chance meeting with these two that lends itself to their chance meeting later on, when they both notice WALL•E and EVE “dancing” outside the ship, itself a form of courtship. They accidentally touch hands, reminiscent of WALL•E’s hope to hold EVE’s hand. It’s the beginning of courtship, leading to marriage, leading to family.

Later on when AUTO tilts the ship in an attempt to maintain control from the captain, we see the “big baby” population helplessly sliding across the deck, too fat to stand, unable to right themselves. When actual babies start to slide from the nursery down toward the obese pile, it’s John and Mary who save them, with Mary shouting, “John, get ready to have some kids!” We see here again a progression, from a pair to a family, even if it is only suggested.

The imagery is even more explicit in *batteries not included. The robots themselves bear offspring, with every stage displayed, from mating through pregnancy to birth. Along with them, we’re shown their human counterpart, with Marisa clearly pregnant, her boyfriend away, and a new suitor recently made available when his girlfriend leaves. That Mason and Marisa will be together at the end of the film is a foregone conclusion as soon as they are on screen together.

Along with identifying each machine as an individual with a heart and soul, these films take care to establish gender roles. There is little doubt that WALL•E is a boy. While he isn’t some hulking imposing figure, he is utilitarian, dirty, boxy, and mechanical. EVE is as much formed as a female as WALL•E is male. She is graceful, curved, clean, and with almost ethereal qualities. Her technological superiority doesn’t supersede WALL•E’s male role, either. It’s an effective comic element that the “girl” robot is to much more capable than the “boy”. Any child could identify the male and female here without any hesitation. For the grown-ups, if there were any confusion left, we see WALL•E’s courtship (with EVE in stasis) as he shields her from the elements, takes her on a leisurely float down a (toxic) stream, builds her “sculpture” portrait, and takes the initiative to hold her hand. In the DVD commentary for WALL•E, Andrew Stanton discusses the gender differentiation in the film. He mentions a Peter Gabriel concert he attended where the stage was shown as a dichotomy, with one end representing masculinity, the other femininity. One side had boxy shapes, the other curved forms. Incidentally, it’s Gabriel who composed and performed the song for the closing credits of WALL•E, offering the denouement and epilogue as we see, in motion graphic chronology, civilization rebuilt, flowing through the major art movements from history.

Gender roles are equally defined in *batteries not included. We witness the birth of mechanical offspring straight from the mother machine. And in very similar fashion to WALL•E, we see Mason painting a (nude) portrait of (clothed) Marisa.

An interesting addition to the focus on couples, children, and family is the attention paid to nostalgia, remembrance, and home. WALL•E is the ultimate scavenger. He has for himself a home entirely made up of found items. Most of his collection seems to be admittedly useless, at least to him. Spoons, forks, and at least one spork aren’t much good to a solar powered robot. Neither are lawn gnomes or novelties like a Rubick’s cube. But it’s the collection of these tangible, seemingly useless things that contributes to WALL•E’s likableness. We are much more fond of him in his cobbled together hovel than we are of the squeaky clean, always new environment onboard the Axiom. His sense of nostalgia for a culture he was never even part of endears him to us. Even the Captain of the Axiom recognizes the importance of remembering origins. “Out there is our Home, HOME, Auto, and it’s in trouble”. Ultimately, it’s WALL•E who reminds and restores humanity to Earth. He fulfils for us a primal longing to return to our origins, our home.

The same attitude is clear in *batteries not included. The primary conflict is between the tenants of a lone decades old apartment, all of the contemporary structures destroyed by urban “progress”. After the hired goons from the developer break a prized relic from each tenant, it’s the robots who restore them, old things good as new. It’s the first indication to the people there that something strange is happening in their apartment building. Harry, who speaks only in TV ad catch-phrases, was the human freight train, a once great heavyweight champ. Time has not been kind to him, leaving him alone and forgotten by the changed world while he has stayed the same. When the diner on the ground floor is destroyed, it seems to take Frank Riley to his breaking point. This is where he was born, where he grew up, where he raised his family. But when the diner is fixed by the robots, not only is his spirit renewed, but business begins again. Customers come to the once abandoned eatery. We see even more focus on remembering and nostalgia when we consider that Frank’s wife Faye Riley has dementia. In her mind, it’s always the mid 1950’s, her son will always be a rebellious youth, and the landscape will never change. She is incapable, at least mentally, of leaving “home”. It’s the providential involvement of “the little guys”, as she calls the robots, that makes her happy delusion almost real.

Through WALL•E and *batteries not included, we cathartically experience the same regeneration as the characters affected by these minute mechanical messiahs. We leave feeling whole, with a restored sense of familial love and home. It may seem a strange coupling to include sci-fi elements, so at home with horror and the uncanny, right in the middle of a family film. But the payoff proves the formula, and like Faye Riley says in *batteries not included, “We’re a family again” when we enjoy such films with our own families.

Tuesday, October 07, 2008

NextFest

Turns out I'm just posting interesting links and videos. Probably should have compiled them into one post, but I didn't realize I would just keep posting.

Regardless, I love robots. Enjoy.

Tuesday, August 26, 2008

Android Invasion


I've been looking forward to the release of the Android phone for a long time. My Sidekick is hanging on by a thread, and I'm ready for it's successor. So far, it looks like Andy Rubin won't disappoint. He founded Danger, maker of the Sidekick series, and now he's heading the next big thing.


Engadget keeps getting info leak in about the first device to host the platform, the G1, the Dream Phone, it's gotten a few monikers amongst the handset following crowd. It's made by HTC, whom I've mentioned before. I've wanted to invest in them before, and just found out that you can buy shares on the London Stock Exchange (four at a time). If I ever save any money, maybe I'll try.

Anyway, the phone looks sweet. It's an open platform, which is something I really value. It doesn't look now like it'll have bleeding edge hardware specs, but oh well, I've been using a three year old phone.

The features I've decided I value in a phone are:
Form factor - It makes a difference to me whether it's a flip-phone, a candybar, a slider, a swivel, or any other permutation on phone form. I tend to really gravitate toward the "quickdraw" phones, like the Samsung P735 I used to have, or the current Sidekick.
Camera - I love taking pictures (and video) from my phone. Love it. I like being able to record whatever is happening around me. Maybe it's the broadcast journalist in me, but I'd chose to have a camera on me at all times, and the advent of cell-phone-cams make that perfectly feasable. The better the camera, the happier I'll be.
Data Connectivity - I use my phone for mostly non-telephone things. I use text, email, chat, the Web, note taking, scheduling, you name it. Connection to the one machine is important.
User Interface - This is part of where Android will make a big difference. Because it's open, the skin and controls can be customized, and because it's Google, it probably won't need much customization anyway.
Expandable Memory - As the cost of memory declines (about %40 per year), I should be able to load in a new card and carry %40 more a year from now for the same price. Most smartphones today have some form of expandable memory, theres just no reason not to.
Openness - An open platform is A) SO much more flexible than a closed platform B) Cheaper for the consumer (I don't have to go into the Apple store to get new software), and C) Inclined toward innovation, expanding the abilities of the end user.


So far, it's looking like this HTC phone will meet ALL of my requests. I really don't think you know how excited I am.

Tuesday, July 01, 2008

Review: WALL·E


We went Friday night to Lincoln Square Cinemas. I hardly knew the group we were with. That's fine, I was there to see the movie, and would likely have gone by myself had it come to that. I've been looking forward to to WALL·E for over a year now. It's a combination of so many things I love; sci-fi, space travel, Pixar animation, and did I mention ROBOTS!? This is all pretty childish, I know, but maybe I maintain some childish sensibilities.

The reviews were positive, with interspersed nay-saying. So given my history with Pixar (I've loved everything they've put out) and the general box-office success they've had, I had high expectations. They were pleasantly met.

WALL·E follows a diminutive unlikely hero (with a familiar form factor). Our little robot is the last remaining worker left to clean up the planet after it became so cluttered and polluted that nothing could live here. Man, heavy, right? Pixar manages to present the grim setting with a light touch. We watch our little guy scurry about his business, the only thing to move in the midst of towering cities of garbage.

His centuries long solitude (not complete solitude, he does have the companionship of a resilient cockroach) is interrupted when one day amidst his routine of collecting, compacting, and dealing with the detritus, a ship lands and leaves an explorer, EVE.

WALL·E, quite smitten, tries to impress the newcomer with little success.

Suffice it to say that the rest of the story takes them through space, to the new home of mankind, to countless other robots, and back home again.

There was some speculation that WALL·E might not pull the audience through, with virtually no dialogue for huge portions of the film. Will the hero-bot keep our attention? Or the attention of children, for that matter? I'm glad to say unequivocally that yes, he can and does. As great as Andrew Stanton's script is, it's not the dialogue that carries this film along. It doesn't need to, though I found myself laughing at some lines well after I left the theater. The stunning animation does the job, and I don't mean the scenery, though the backdrop is amazing. I mean the performance of WALL·E and the other robots.

Alvy Ray Smith, Pixar co-founder, visited the Microsoft campus a few weeks ago, and mentioned that the job of the animator isn't all that different from that of an actor. They're both called upon to convince you that one thing is really another thing entirely. The actor convinces you that his person is the person of somebody else, while the animator convinces you that this 2-d computer rendering is, in fact, a living thing. The animators here manage flawlessly, and the bips and whirs and movement of WALL·E are more endearing than R2-D2 could ever hope to be.

Peppered throughout are references to pieces of consumer culture. Aside from Buy 'n' Large as a clear parody of Wal-Mart, we notice the remnants of Microsoft, Apple, and Hostess amidst the rubble (among others). The general issue of global pollution is apparent, but there are even jabs at the Bush administration.

The only detraction I have isn't the minimal dialogue, but the repetition. The robots have a limited vocabulary, and rely heavily on the few words they do use. It gets to be a bit much by the end. But from such a huge undertaking as this film, considering how many things can go wrong, that's a pretty minor detail.

I've heard opinions all over the board, but the vast majority of the bell-curve is in the "very positive" spectrum. People love WALL·E, and I'm betting you and your kids will to.

Sunday, May 04, 2008

Review: Iron Man

I wanted to see Iron Man opening night. I've been looking forward to this one for a long time. It certainly gets my award for best trailer of 2007. For a year I've been revving up for this, ever since reading about everything they showed at Comic Con last year (ya, I'm that dorky). But I ran into a few snags. First, I didn't have the usual entourage to go with me. It's Summer, people are home while school is out. Also, I was heading out of town for Landon's wedding, and just didn't think it would be possible. But lucky me.

After the wedding, we found ourselves with a few hours till the reception, and what-do-you-know, the IMAX theater in Boise, just a couple miles from the temple, is showing an opening day matinee of, you guessed it, Iron Man.

The story is simple enough, and standard fare for a comic book movie (of which this is a shining example). Tony Stark, the billionaire playboy tycoon genius, heir to the Stark Industries fortune, is demonstrating a new missile in war torn Afghanistan. After a stunning show to the top military brass, Stark is kidnapped en route back to his private jet. His captors are, unsurprisingly, Middle Eastern terrorists (the original comic book placed him against the Viet Cong, I guess whoever the present national threat is). Their demand is that he build for them, with stolen Stark Industries hardware, the missile he had just demonstrated. Stark comes up with a better plan. He builds a suit of armor and weapons. He wipes out the terrorists. He finds a new mission in life.

There is more to it than that (including a really great interplay between Tony Stark and Pepper Potts, his personal assistant) but I hope this is enough to get you to the theater.
The casting was purely inspired. Every role was filled perfectly, even though the parts weren't exactly intuitive. Robert Downey Jr. is Tony Stark; cocky, charming, intelligent, and very funny throughout. Jeff Bridges was amazing as Obadiah Stane; only showing you what best suits his needs. Gwyneth Paltrow reaffirmed my long time celebrity crush; as Pepper Potts she was as adorable as anything she's ever been in. Terrence Howard is good in everything I've seen him in. I am especially looking forward to him as Jim Rhodes suiting up in the sequels (count on it). Director Jon Favreau makes an on screen cameo as the limo driver, Hogan. There's even a surprise celebrity appearance at the end (the very end).

It was fast. It was funny. It was everything this kind of movie should be, which is fun. There isn't any science, there isn't any stunning plot. There are a lot of explosions, rocket packs, guns, funny lines, and cool machines and special effects. You'll like it, even if you're not into the whole super hero thing. It's just a lot of good time.

Rumor is all the actors have signed on for two more films. Downey will make a cameo as Stark in the upcoming HULK movie (they take place in the same Marvel universe). Dave and I agreed that we wouldn't mind having access to the wardrobe of Stane and Stark, respectively.

A.O. Scott of the New York Times gave it a favorable review, though I held off reading anything more than the headline till after I saw the movie myself. They also offered a little something extra on the development of the suit.

We were lucky enough to see this on the way out. While I don't think it was really a movie for little kids (Rated PG-13 for sequences of sci-fi action and violence, and brief suggestive content), but I just couldn't pass them up.

P.S. Stick around for after the credits, you'll be glad you did.

Sunday, April 06, 2008

I See Games

If there was any ambiguity about my geek status, lets put that to rest here and now. I don't really want to dwell on the subject, so I'm going to try to get this all out of my system in one post.

There was a time in my life when I was sadly addicted to the video game Half-Life. Don't get me wrong on the sadly designation, it was (is) a great game, but I don't want to be addicted to anything. I had to play it, though, had to continue till I got all the way through it. Dang those skilled game designers, pulling you in and not letting go till the credits roll.

Then, several years later, I got hooked on the sequel. I held off on buying it till I it wouldn't ruin my life (i.e. I had enough time to satiate the compulsion to play it through). I played HL2, HL2E1, and HL2E2 from beginning to end in about a week. And Portal (awesome game). Haven't touched them since. I never even tried Team Fortress. The multiplayer aspect doesn't interest me. I'm more drawn to the cinematic, storytelling aspect of gaming that Valve excels at, as well as the problem solving scenarios the player is put through.

If you want to get an idea of what the games are about, here is a 60 second synopsis video (in German).




Since I played HL2 through, there have been a couple times when I've seen the game in places it doesn't really belong. Examples follow.

Exhibit 1A: Loader at Black Mesa
The Loader is a prominent vehicle in the Black Mesa Research Facility in the first Half-Life game. The initial scripted sequence shows the loaders performing a number of tasks for the lab. I really loved them when I first played the game, no doubt part of my love for robotics.



Exhibit 1B: Loader in the HBLL
Saw this at the Harold B. Lee Library at BYU. There are clear differences and clear similarities. The Loader in the game walked and had a grasping arm. The HBLL loader had legs for static stability only, and an extending arm for...well...window washing, I think. Not as glamorous, but you get the idea.




Exhibit 2A: Hunters
The Hunter is a three legged bio-mechanical enemy in the game. You're never quite sure if it is more machine or living creature. They prove surprisingly agile and genuinely frightening when you get caught up in it all.



Exhibit 2B: Twin-Reflex Camera
I just bought an old Kodak Duaflex II, and I'll be darned if I didn't first see a Hunter without legs.





Exhibit 3A: GLaDOS Eye
GLaDOS is the artificially intelligent enemy in Portal. It's not Half-Life, but they both take place in the same diegetic world. At the end of the game, we see a storage room with spare "eyes" for the machine (along with the fabled cake).





Exhibit 3B: Pollen Detecting "Robots" (sensors)
Though I doubt the designation "Robot" (from what I can tell, they don't move), these pollen detectors in Japan look eerily like they are plotting against me. Maybe they plan on killing us all with allergies. Throw a cake in there and it could be the same room.



There are other examples, but these are the best.

Movie?

Something else I've thought about is a not so popular idea: A Half-Life Movie. I know, I know, video-game-to-movie conversions are invariably bad. Think Mario Brothers, Tomb Raider, or Doom for some of the better known examples. Or anything Uwe Boll has done. I think he is a despicable person, and an insult to the title film-maker. All of his movies suck, and are sadly representative of the game-gone-movie genre.

But I also assert that there is no reason a video-game to movie conversion has to be bad. Why should they be? Games are fun, movies are fun, they're both a moving visual medium, they're both prone to action. Why can't the two seem to get along?

Because film-makers haven't taken advantage of the video game's great strengths. They already have a fan-base, so appeal to that. There are very few video-game movies that the fans of the game are pleased with. They need to show and use the favorites from the game, the favorite weapons, the favorite enemies, the favorite, places. NOT completely new weapons, enemies, and places that vaguely resemble the game.

The Half-Life Movie could be viable with the right people behind it. Try somebody like Edgar Wright and Simon Pegg. The men behind Shaun of the Dead and Hot Fuzz would be perfect. They've proved very talented with dark comedy (involving zombies), and that's what this would have to be. The game is dark and violent, but it is a game, and shouldn't take itself too seriously, thus a comedy film.



Wright comes by the name rightly, as his gift for writing is clear to anybody who watches his movies more than once. They're airtight, not a wasted line in them. So who better to tackle the responsibility of writing a film where the protagonist incidentally never speaks, somebody whose facial expression or lack thereof tell all that needs to be said? It opens the door right up to supporting characters comically interrupting him when he might speak or interpreting his silence. Pegg as Gordon Freeman wouldn't be any problem, his British accent isn't even an issue. Nick Frost could be...I don't know...a zombie. He could be every zombie.

They would, of course, have to also work in a sequence with first person perspective, maybe a shot from the internal camera of the HEV suit.

Where it starts and stops chronologically in the Half-Life story almost doesn't matter, though given a choice I'd say start at the beginning. With the success of a first, they could turn it into a successful franchise film. Everybody wins.

This post is too long. I'm tired. Let me know what you think.

UPDATE: I forgot to mention, what first got me thinking about his was my first viewing of Shaun of the Dead. I was surprised I hadn't seen an accompanying video game to go along with it. Then I thought, "Well, if no studios want to make it, the fans should. They could build a mod on the HL2 engine, like the Black Mesa project (that is taking forever)". Then the idea struck me that the Shaun of the Dead people should do a Half-Life movie. There you have it.

UPDATE 2: I just saw this.
Dust Mite Totally Looks Like Headcrab
see more Celeb Look-A-Likes

Thursday, February 28, 2008

Great Ending

Remember the ending to The Incredibles? How they took out that awesome giant robot with it's own rocket hand?

I just discovered something.

It's a straight ripoff from this sad movie. How do I know that? Robot Jox just showed up at my house from Netflix, both spelled with a stylish "x". I really, really have to stop watching movies that I just know are going to be crappy. But apparently I'm not the only one watching...I'm looking at you Brad Bird. He must have a thing for giant robots. Can't say that I blame him.

If you're interested to see for yourself, jump past the remarkably phalic chainsaw (2:25) to the part where our protagonist pulls the robot rocket hand stunt (3:55). Exact same ending.

I'm realizing more and more as I watch more and more movies, read more and more books, and take more and more classes, that real originality is:

A) Very rare
B) Almost impossible
C) Probably over-rated
D) Simply synthesis
E) All of the above



Monday, February 18, 2008

Engadget Roundup

I read the tech blog Engadget. A whole lot. Aside from finding the material interesting, it's also pretty pertinent at times. If any of this catches your interest, there is a widget on the side of this blog where you can see the latest headlines. A sampling for you, in no particular order:

-That analog TV you've been watching for the past few decades? Well, I'm sorry to tell you, but aside from upgrading for the sake of a better picture, channel options, and size, it looks like you'll have to trade it for a digital TV of necessity. Analog cellular networks, R.I.P.: 1983 - 2008

-Ray Kurtzweil, who has been right about a number of other issues, thinks that machines will match human intelligence by 2029. Awesome. Kurzweil predicts that machines will match man by 2029 -- bring it on

-The Kota Triceratops and the Elmo TMX prove something I said a while back.

-DSLR Movie Shooting reminds me of a couple videos Ross Ching did. I mentioned him a little while ago.

-iPhone nothin'! Okay, they're pretty cool, but they're not the end-all, there are many phones with better specs, if not as sleek or nifty of features. I think I'd go for something like the Nokia N96. And if it ran the Android OS from Google? Even better.

-I've been betting on Blu ray for almost a year now over HD DVD. It now looks like the battle is almost over. Warner went Blu exclusively, followed by some other big players right after, including Netflicks. This would all be great if our stupid Samsung Blu-ray player worked like it should.

-A tragic end to a wonderful thing, Polaroid will not longer make...Polaroids. If you've been reading this blog at all, you'll know how much I am saddened by this news.

-It looks like there won't ever be a Sidekick running Android OS. Microsoft dropped a bundle to pick up the mobile developer. Really smart move on Microsoft's part, acquiring innovative smaller companies to infuse the corporate giant with some new blood, but sad for consumers. Especially since Danger founder Andy Rubin is now working with Google to develop the Android OS. It would have been like reuniting long lost family members if there had been a Sidekick with Android.

-This is just cool. Read about the most powerful laser...ever.

-When I pick up a blue-tooth adapter, I'd want to get something like this.

Gizmodo is pretty good too.

Friday, January 04, 2008

Low Budget, yes. But it'll cost All your Self Respect

I recently ran across a NY Times article about a certain breed of parasitic film. I couldn't believe the cover art they were showing for these blatant rip-offs. Like I said, straight to DVD isn't really my favorite, but this was just comical. They're produced for next to no budget in a few short months and intentionally hit the shelves at Blockbuster at the same time as their respective "inspirations". I'm serious, next time you're renting a DVD, take a look on the shelves, you'll see these in there. The following examples are all from the same company.


When you're done laughing at this, I'll continue. What is interesting about this one, was the original Snakes movie was meant to be a really bad B-movie. So the rip-off is what, a C-movie? I'd give it a D minus.


The Asylum wasn't the only one to capitalize from DaVinci-mania, but I can't think of any more glaring.


I suppose if you can't get enough of giant space robots invading earth, Transmorphers might be just the thing. This makes me wonder, what does it take to get an IMDB credit? If these guys can do it...


According to the NY Times article, this is what kicked it all off. The el-cheapo version of War of the Worlds just happened to come out at about the same time as the multi-million dollar special effects extravaganza by Stephen Spielberg with Tom Cruise. The el-cheapo company got ten times the normal order. Time to rework the business plan.


Their most recent and heavily touted work, Alien vs. Hunter, is planed for a simultaneous release on video with Alien vs. Predator: Requiem. And I thought the actual franchise had hit rock bottom. Count on The Asylum to start digging.


Again, this is a movie that was patently bad. Everybody, especially the fans of the book, were sorely disappointed. Turns out you don't need good source material to make a bad copy. Honestly, though, if you're dying to see a low-budget dragon movie, rent Dragon Hunter.


When I started looking at the credits for The Asylum, I realized I'd been to their website before. When I wrote my review for I Am Legend, I mentioned that the story had been adapted a few times before. I'll point out one more time, that the Robert Neville character in I Am Omega is played by none other than Mark Dracascos, the Chairman from Iron Chef America.


Monster seemed to have trouble with copying a beast we haven't yet seen in Cloverfield. The good folks at The Asylum managed to take care of this by copying yet another recent monster movie, The Host. That is far and away, the most originality this studio has expended in ages. "I know! We'll rip-off two monster movies at ONCE! And we'll call it...MONSTER!" Genius.


Oh, how the mighty have fallen.
Lance Henriksen has actually done some good stuff before. He was in the previously mentioned Aliens movies; it's a wonder he wasn't recruited for Alien vs. Hunter. That may have been too much, even for The Asylum. There may have been legal ramifications to that, studios suing and such. "Wait, you ripped off our whole movie, and you're using the same actors?!" So instead, cast him as Long John Silver. And a few other roles, he is in several of their movies.

My dad made an interesting point as I shook my head at dear Lance.
"I suppose it just depends on how hungry you get."
I don't think he meant metaphorically. All of these movies make a profit (they're made for almost nothing in a film budget sense) and I'm sure the actors are happy to get a paycheck. Ol' Lance just wants to do pottery, from what I understand, and if doing a really, really bad B-movie rip-off on occasion facilitates that, then I guess we can just laugh along with him and let it slide.

Wednesday, January 02, 2008

Email from my Friends

Today I received two emails from my friends, who sent along peculiarities they thought I might enjoy. They were right.

Email the First:

Justin Anderson to me
show details 11:26 AM (10 hours ago)

Reply

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Anderson, Dave.J.
Date: Jan 2, 2008 10:46 AM
Subject: FOXNews.com - Japanese Robot Eats Snow, Poops Out Bricks of Ice - Science News | Science & Technology | Technology News
To: Justin

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,319473,00.html


Email the Second:

dave peterson to me
show details 10:31 AM (11 hours ago)

Reply

this was bizarre enough that i thought id send it your way.
helena bonham carter and matthew broderick, arm in arm, in 1987.
19870330_oscars02.jpg
17K View Download
Reply

Forward