Smart Characters and The Amazing Spider-Man

I have tried to lay down my thoughts on The Amazing Spider-Man all week. First i want to say that I wasn’t the biggest Spider-Man fan. I liked him, but I was always more of an X-Men guy. But I have read my fair share of Spidey stories over the years, so I like to think I have a good grasp on the character and his story. I also enjoyed the Sam Raimi movies–the first two at least–and I admit I thought it was kinda silly for Sony to reboot the character so soon. Going into the movie, I knew I had a bit of a bias against it, but I gave it the chance all movies deserve.

Of all things from the 90′s they could have used, why this!

While I liked Raimi’s movies, I will be the first to admit there were flaws or omissions that I felt were integral to Peter Parker and Spider-Man. Luckily, we got some of those in this movie: He’s actually intelligent, he has to create webbing, he has his Spidey Sense, and a female counter part that is on the same footing as him–I didn’t mind looking at Kirsten Dunst, but that was such a wimpy Mary Jane. And along with it came this movies own flaws. Like why the hell did they take that shoddy 90′s arc about Peter’s parent’s being secret agents? Why did they not have the “with great power comes great responsibility” line from Uncle Ben?

What I had very hard time with were my thoughts on Andrew Garfield‘s performance and Marc Webb‘s vision of Peter Parker. Then it came to me, they weren’t smart enough to do the traditional, intelligent, Peter. I have to give Raimi and Toby Maguire credit, they went for more a 90′s “he happens to be smart when he needs to” Spidey than the original 60′s “I’m at the same level Reed Richards was in high school” Spidey. That let them do emotional stories which any actor can do. Playing a smart person is very hard, because if you aren’t as smart as that character, you are going to look like a moron.

Back in my heavy roleplaying days, my friend Dustin used have a rule that you played a character with high intelligence, you have to play high intelligence. If you couldn’t think your way out of something, just having the stat didn’t let you recon your choices or actions. It was a good rule because otherwise you could have someone playing a genius and do something stupid and when the repercussions hit say, “Wait, I would have figured out that would happen so I didn’t really say/do that.” It happens a lot, trust me. And that is basically what happened though this whole movie in both actions and portrayal of an intelligent teenager.

Action wise is really ease to point out glaring moments. I mean, if you have a bullet wound, wouldn’t you bandage it before climbing a skyscraper? But the subtler thing, the portrayal, is harder to get down to, but it is something we all know innately. When I went to college, it was a college of smart teenagers. Not 18 or 19 years-olds, but 15, 16, 17 years-olds. I was actually old for the college since I turn 18 my freshman year. What I don’t think a lot of people understand about very smart teenagers is that they will respond emotionally like any teenager–if they don’t, they are a sociopath and need help–but they are also rationalizing and analyzing what is happening.Smart kids are socially awkward because there is always that part of them that seeing everything as, for lack of a better description, a data set. They may react “emo” when something bad happens to them because not only is a painful moment, but most of them have started to develop their identity around the fact they are smart. So, it becomes a failure of not knowing something or getting the wrong answer, which is not supposed to happen to them.

I don’t blame you if you’ve stopped reading.

Emma Stone did a decent job, and I think her role in Easy A helped that. But when it came to Peter, it was like there were two of them: Smart Peter and Emotional Peter. Smart Peter was okay when left to be smart only. Once emotions came in or it was time for Emotional Peter, things just didn’t mesh well. He was too normal. I didn’t see him try to think a head. I said to my dad, “He’s just a punk.” My dad said, “He was always a punk.” I disagreed, but I did my research and read the first few issues of the original Amazing Spider-Man comic. Yeah he was kinda rebellious, like any teenager was, and a little “emo” side his Uncle was killed and he had to take on Uncle Ben’s responsibilities on top of everything else. But he wasn’t a punk. That is something peter got later in the comic, but considering all the crap he goes through in that time, I think anyone would get some punk in them too.So if I can leave you with any word of advice it’s this: You don’t have to be smart to know when intelligence if faked. We see it enough in people around use that we have gathered the subtle clues to pick it out. If a character doesn’t feel smart, then he’s not, no matter what is written or portrayed.

What The Alan Scott Nerdrage Is About

DC Comics officially revealed that the very first Green Lantern, Alan Scott, will be reboot as a gay character. Considering that when I checked Twitter this morning (and it may still be the same as you read this) both Alan Scott and Green Lantern were trending topics in the US, I have to say there is more people upset with it than welcoming it. The news wasn’t that astonishing to me, he was mentioned a few times when news that DC was turning a perviously straight hero gay was leaked (Martian Manhunter was another, there’s something about the color green). But I will admit I was bit upset, but I didn’t know why.

First, I thought that it might deal with the fact that this will make it impossible for Jade, Alan Scott’s daughter, most likely won’t exist, or be the same person at the very least. She was a great female hero and was the only female Green Lantern I ever really knew about as a kid. But then I remember that Jade was originally put up for adoption, so Alan being gay could easily just switch it that she is adopts by Alan and somehow gets his powers from a blood transfusion ala She-Hulk (I really hope they don’t do the She-Hulk thing, but considering the cheesier thing the New 52 has done, I wouldn’t be surprised).

Then I it came to me, this has nothing to do with Alan Scott. Maybe for the intolerant assholes it is, but for me and I think average comic readers, it is isn’t. It’s that the Earth-2 universe is getting the reboot that promised with the New 52. For the last 9 months, we haven gotten comics that really are not that different from what was coming out of DC before. Backstory is different, a bit, but all in all, there was no real reboot. There is no clean slate and starting over. A state where you say someone on the Justice League, DC’s flagship title, was gay. Why isn’t someone in the main DC universe getting the sexual reboot, why is all the crap we were hoping to see going into Earth-2?

Think about how the dynamic would change if Hal Jordan or Barry Allan or Cyborg were gay. I bet Wonder Woman wouldn’t mind a guy that isn’t leering at her ass during battles.

 

Stars In Their Eyes

This post started out as a response of sorts from a Twitter reply I got from author Chris Bohjalian. Earlier that day I rated his newest novel, The Night Strangers, on Goodreads two stars. He was very polite and apologized for me not liking the book. As soon as I saw that, I had to reply back to say he had nothing to apologize for, because I knew many that enjoyed that book.

I mean, what kind of world do we live in when a writer feels he or she has to apologize to a reader that doesn’t completely enjoy a book and rates it on a murky spectrum of subjectivity and objectivity on a website?

Then, this morning, I read this article about a blow up turned flame war that engulfed writers, reviewers, agents, and worst, publishers and spread from Goodreads to Twitter and other social networks. It reminds me a lot about an incident I peripherally involved in a few years back involving the Twitter chat #Romfail and author Ray Garton, where I wrote a series of posts on the over all professionalism that such incidents lack.

If you wish to read them, they are the Calliope Wept: Part 1, Part 2, Part 3

While the Goodreads blow up and Chris Bojalian’s response to my rating are very different, they both still stem from a problem with in writing: A unhealthy obession with ratings and reviews.

Yes, they are helpful–to an extent. Case in point: At Anthocon, during the MFA Programs panel, the topic of epublishing and “gatekeepers” came up, myself and Kevin Lucia agreed the lack of gatekeepers in the e-publishing world. At the end of the panel when we were open to questions, a man mentioned that the gatekeepers for epublished works were the customer ratings and reviews. The good books will get good ratings and the bad will get bad. And I called bullshit.

Yes, they can be helpful, especially in tough economic times, to help choose what book to buy. But, even the less perceptive people in the world can see that many of those 1 and 5 star ratings are shames. As I told the man, “If see simply, ‘This book rocks!’ or ‘This book sucks!’ or similar one sentence reviews, they don’t count in my mind.” I will expand on that in saying that those kinds of reviews are typically written by 1.) Friends or family trying to help get a good word out about the book or assholes being asshole or 2.) People with no real practiced skill at reviewing that they are going on base Pleasure Principle reactions which are the most subjective, thus invalid, methods of of ranking objective quality of a thing. It is those reviews that are at least a paragraph long that you always look for, because you know there is a better chance that the person who wrote it took the time look at it in an objective way and will use that toolset give to us all in 4th grade: Compare and Contrast.

But somehow, anyone who just decides to write anything, from the insipid to the intellectual, are seen to be endowed with a world altering power to decide the fates of books. I’m calling bullshit, again. I know the only book I can influence is the one I write, promote, and sell. I can use tools like ratings and reviews to help speed things along, but if all book blogs and site shut down, I can still build an audience and a fan base.

I think we, as a society, like to rate things a in the extremes. We want black and white, because the shades of gray get depressing and boring after a while. I had a friend in college that would go on those “Hot or Not” sites and only rate 1 or 10. She said, “If you aren’t gorgeous and decide to put you pic on here, you better be ready for harsh critics.” It the same thing here. So I wanted to share how I rate things. It’s not perfect, and that’s because it is still subject to my personal tastes. But I try to be as objective as I can.

1 Star – This is the ones where I wonder how they even got published. It the home of the books I add to my First Chapter Fail Club. There are intrinsic problems in the book that are apparent from the beginning would be hard to rectify by the middle of the book.

2 Stars – This is low end of most books. Now, this is not to say it is a bad book. Just that within the story, there were recurring elements that I thought were either weak, unnecessary, or one of the few pet peeves of mine. And those elements were enough to throw me out of the story. Not bad books, just not up to par.

3 Stars – This is where every published book is that gets the job done. Have good characters, interesting story, keeps the action moving, with a satisfying ending. If you are published by any kind of press with an editor, you should be here at the very least.

4 Stars – This high end of most books. They do everything the 3 Stars due, but crank it up a notch. So by the time I finish reading I am glad I read it and I know I’ll go back to it again in my lifetime.

5 Stars – These are the elite of my books. Either from a objective point of view, like Ulysses, that is just a literary masterpiece; or a subjective one, like The Hellbound Heart, that affected me both as a writer and reader and resonated with me and my own writing.

See, even I can’t keep the 1 and 5 stars from being heavily influenced subjectively. And there, in a way, I think is the fault of any kind of rating system: It can never be objective if left to the whim of humanity.

Assassin’s Creed: Revelations

Note: I apologize for the length of this post

Since Assassin’s Creed 2 came out, fans of the series have been wondering how the story of Ezio Auditore da Firenze will come to a conclusion. Many thought it would be in Assassin’s Creed: Brotherhood. Fans also wanted to have more of the original assassin that started it all, Altaïr Ibn-La’Ahad. Plus, there was a big cliffhanger of the true protagonist of the series, Desmond Miles, whose genetic memories are being accessed and we re-live the past through. Like many a good series, there is a lot to work with and a lot to resolve by the end, or supposed end, or possible end, or what ever this game seemed to have been.

And that is my main problem with Assassin’s Creed: Revelations, I didn’t know what this was supposed to be as I played it or even when I finished it.

It wasn’t bad, but it was not what I had grown to expect from the AC series. Each game there were evolutions and refinement of what worked in the previous game. In Revelations, the refinements felt lackluster. The innovations felt rushed and underdeveloped. And all those story expectations? Well, they weren’t anti-climatic, nor were they climatic:

• Eagle Sense: What was once Eagle Vision, has always been one of those parts of the series that in concept is great, but in execution just never quite seemed that important, though it did have some cool easter eggs or hints if you did use. In my experience, you could figure everything out in the previous games for the main story and many side missions without ever needing to use it. The only time you did was when you were looking for the Truth symbols or Subject 16 symbols in AC2 and Brotherhood. It added a bit of a “hide and seek” mini game and you were rewarded with a challenging puzzle that was the real goal. In Revelations, they really made it mandatory that you use it for missions. They do this by instead of giving you a target to trail, they leave a invisible path that you have to follow. Or by giving you a number of objects or targets that are colored gold in Eagle Sense and you have to go one by one and “stare” at it till you “figure out” if it is the thing or person you are looking for. I know what they are trying to do, but when it comes to game play, it is tedious and after a few missions, or if you played the other games, you know how these missions and target placements are designed, so you know what they are without using the Eagle Sense. And what of the purpose that many people liked using it for? What of those symbols that lead to challenging puzzle. Gone are the puzzles and in come books that you have to do more of the staring to find that actual location of said books from a high point in the city. And then nothing really came of the books, then again I didn’t collect all of them yet because I got bored real quick.
• Bombs: This were kind of pointless. There was exactly one mission that you had to use it, and that is if you wanted to do it perfectly. Other than that, you never needed to use it. At this point in the game series, I’m seeing seeing what I like to call the Harry Potter effect. That is characters in a story that almost have to do nothing but be there for events, attack, and run away while everyone else really does the work for them. I mean by adding bombs that can kill, distract, or impede guards to the Assassin recruits, Arrow Storm, Mercenaries, Thieves, and Romani/Courtesans, you almost never have to sneak past guards anymore.
• Romani: There is a huge contradiction in the execution of the Romani in this game. On one hand, the game writers use this platform to talk about the actual truth of the Romani and expose the persecution they’ve dealt with for centuries under the moniker of Gypsies. On the other, their use in the game is that of the purpose the Courtesans in the last two games who danced and flirted with the guards. Somehow, I’m not sure the moralistic intentions of the first really mash up with the “same old, same old” perception of the latter.
• Story Elements: I need to split this up into parts cause each of them has flaws
• Ezio: This is the main story, the problem I had was that there wasn’t a whole lot to it. It felt very short. The first few sets of missions were solely derived around going through what’s new or changed from the last game. But in Brotherhood, that was dealt with very quickly and you dove right into the story. Now I don’t know if there was just more missions to each set, or they were longer, or a bit of both, but all I know, there was not the same amount of game time to the main story in Revelations as there was in the previous games. I know a part of it was to give time to the Desmond and Altaïr sections, but even adding them in, this was a very short game. We breeze through Ezio’s closing chapters, none it nearly as dramatic as any part of the other games. And you kinda get a felling of, “That’s it? That’s how we end Ezio’s story?”
• Altaïr: People have clamored to get back in the shoes of this assassin. I think when we got word that we would in this game, a lot of people thought it would be two storylines where we go between Ezio and Altaïr. Well, we do, in a way. Altaïr’s story is broken up to mini memories where you have to be blindfolded and playing with your feet to have a hard time doing. More than one is just you walking. Yeas, we see blimps of his life from before the first Assassin’s Creed to his death, but we wanted to be Altaïr. Not just watch him. To be honest, I think it was a cop out to placate fans and they didn’t have the desire to really integrate him into the story, creating a very lame side story.
• Desmond: Now, while you play most of the game as Ezio, the true main character is is Desmond. THe purpose of the Ezio and Altaïr stories are to help Desmond separate himself from the Animus before he dies in a coma and is trapped inside the machine and erased forever. Apparently, since they took out the puzzles in the Ezio part of the game, they decided that the whole Desmond part should be the puzzle section of the game. We get a cliff notes version of his life during a series of first-person puzzle-shooter mini-missions where you have two shapes–a platform and an ascending ramp–that you can spawn around and under you and you have to navigate through large swaths of empty space with occasional obstacles. This was challenging, just frustrating and tedious. And the worst part, the contrived situation that makes seem like you need to do this doesn’t have an effect on the game. At least the Altaïr missions tie to the story. You can completely skip these missions, which makes the whole “fight for your existence by separating your memories from your ancestor’s” angle moot, there by making the whole premise of the games story moot.
• Mulitplayer: In Brotherhood, they added a multiplayer section of the game. It was a great addition and it was a multiplayer experience for those that love the single player experience. It comes back in Revelation, only this time they add a storyline element to it. A great idea, especially to draw in people that may not play multiplayer, but horrible execution. First off, to get the full story, you have to play to level 50, which is a long time, and I’m willing to bet is longer than it would take to play the main story. Yes you get access to the Templar files that goes a bit deeper into everything the Templars have been doing over the centuries, but is no more than little text files you used to get when you solved the Eagle Vision puzzles in the last two game. Yeah you get little videos every 5 levels to make you feel like you are becoming a big, bad Templar, but those get old fast. This could have been a great way to get people playing and explore the antagonists, but the developers used it to get people to play multiplayer longer. As a guy that is not a fan of multiplayer, after a while it becomes less important to find all that out when there are Wiki sites that will write it all for me to read.

I know all of this makes seem like Revelations is not worth it. And I can’t say yes or no to that for everyone. All I know is that I was very disappointed. I’m a guy that goes for the story of a game above anything else, and that was really the most lacking thing about it. Some games can get away with that if the things they bring to the game are cool and engaging enough for the player to not see it. But even there, Ubisoft missed the mark and they even altered things in odd, contrived ways that were the best parts of the last few games. I hope it is just  the fact that they were greedy and tried to get one more Ezio game out and that they can sort of start fresh when Assassin’s Creed 3 comes out with a new assassin ancestor. But if this is a vision of future titles, this could be a death knell for the series.

When Good Things Go Wrong

I give up on horror based television. Last season, Happy Town got pulled before they could really get going. Yeah, there was a bit of camp to it, but it was a first season. This year’s attempt, American Horror Story, had a real chance till they screwed up the last two weeks.

Bring the hate. I’m sticking my to my statement. But you, the calm one that just asked “Why do you say that?” I would love to have a quick chat.

You see, American Horror Story had a good, interesting premise that had a lot going for it. It went back to the classic setting of the haunted house and placed a family of rich characters in the middle of it. The episodes should have written themselves. And for a while, they did. They did a good job of striking the balance of single show stories and season long story arcs. Each show, one of the ghosts makes their appearance and causes havoc (episode stories) and how the family deals with them and grow is focused on (season arc).

Now, I will be the first one to admit, they could only do that for so long beofre it got silly. I mean, every TV show hopes to be on for seasons, each being 13-24 episodes. That would be a lot of deaths in one house. So, I expected a give on the episode stories at some point and ghosts were going to take on more of a role. Surprisingly, they made that shift early after the Halloween episodes. From then on, the decline of the story was imminent.

*Spoilers beyond this point*