Thursday, October 27, 2011

Night Visions Night 1


Hobo with a Shotgun is like an OSR kind of grindhouse movie. It's clearly made with love and an homage to just how wrong a lot of those 70s movies were, but at the same time it's a movie that can only be made with that 30-40 years of reflection. It's very self-aware, but in this case that makes the movie. It is the movie. It's a love-in to the genre.

You know, you watch those old movies and they're trying to make a hard-hitting and serious movie but what they've made is a movie which has edges so raw it freaks people out. This one goes for the hard-hitting and the freak-out but forgets about serious. For the most part it's a "mean streets in a corrupt city" thing, but it might be a wetter movie than Brain Dead.

This probably isn't a "good movie," but it's a grainy movie made in Technicolor and it's called Hobo with a Shotgun and whatever else you can say about the movie, it delivers everything it promises and then goes right over the line with it.

The Thing 2011 (spoilers, although these spoilers are summed up as "It really really is a prequel")

Not a bad movie, but there is absolutely nothing particularly good about it either. Carpenter's was a masterpiece in its own way.

It's also interesting that a decently-budgeted movie with studio support was allowed to be such an explicit prequel to a 30 year old movie that never did all that well (financially) to begin with. They take some pains to make sure everything ends up as MacReady and co. find it later on. Hell, as soon as you find out one of the Norwegians don't speak English, you know he survives because at the beginning of Carpenter's movie the Norwegian they shoot doesn't speak English! (the movie ends with the Norwegians in the helicopter chasing the dog...)

But instead of being a remake that either stands or falls as its own thing (or in comparison to the previous version... Carpenter's movie wasn't the first time the story was told after all!), this one is handicapped by the fact that it is a prequel. Stylistic differences become wrong (and I'm not talking film stock or anything overly ridiculous like that), and inconsistencies become not a different artistic or technical interpretation but wrong. And there were such stylistic differences and inconsistencies.

The monster is seen way too much, it acts way too movie-monstery and aggressive (no way this is the same creature in Carpenter's movie), and a lot of times the reactions of the people in this new movie just didn't ring true at all. They didn't sell the paranoia and fear of the people very well at all.

As a generic monster movie? C+, competent and not stupid but nothing spectacular at all. As something that should supposedly work for a back-to-back showing, D.

Dead Ball

uh... low budget over-the-top Japanese movie.

A preternaturally gifted criminal baseball player (he jumps into outer space to gain momentum for his fast ball) must join the prison baseball team as commanded by his Nazi warden. With deadly results.

(more money put into this poster than the rest of the movie...)

(It's that kind of movie)


(There are a lot of Nazis in this movie. And a Hitler shrine. But it's OK, they're the villains. And described as having "segregationist" policies, but that may just be a bad translation.)

(The St. Black Dahlia High School baseball team. Did I mention that this is supposedly about teenagers?)

(yes, they had a character whose entire purpose is to go "Hahaha, they're making fun of Avatar!)

16 comments:

  1. Tonight: Another Earth, Rabies, Trick or Treat, Deep Red

    ReplyDelete
  2. It's also interesting that a decently-budgeted movie with studio support was allowed to be such an explicit prequel to a 30 year old movie that never did all that well (financially) to begin with.

    This observation clarified something for me.

    The point of Hollywood filmmaking is money. They make a film or don't based on its expected return. I'd apparently forgotten my probability classes, so I never thought of this phrase in math-y terms. But there ya have it:

    I have, let's say, a 0.8% chance of watching the new 'Thing' film. You had, let's say, an 80% chance of watching it. You were a hundred times more likely to see the film than I am.

    Simplifying assumption: if folks like you and folks like me are the only filmgoers in the world, they can make the film for y'all or for us, broadly speaking.

    If there are 100x as many of my guys ('delicate flowers') as there are of yours ('fuck! rock! gore! ATTENTION TO SCRIPTWRITING DETAIL!'), they can go ahead and make a film for us. If not, they're better off making a film for you.

    Why would they make something so narrowly focused? Because there aren't many schlock-horror Thing-remembering addicts in the world, but they're almost guaranteed to turn up to watch the shit these philistines put out if it says 'The Thing.'

    It's not worth it for the studios to reach for my dollars if they know they can put out this kind of product and get yours. That's not 'culture,' it's not 'psychology' - it's mathematics.

    (This has been a post about Dungeons & Dragons.)

    ReplyDelete
  3. Summarizing the previous content: Hollywood types never, ever, ever, ever, ever do business without thinking about exactly how much business they'll have to do in order to make a very specific target profit.

    'Runaway success' is not a financial term. They assume finite business.

    Every RPG company should make the same assumption. Only one RPG company has ever been in a position where they could imagine an infinitely large market, and it went out of business twenty years ago.

    ReplyDelete
  4. @Wally

    That logic

    "you can make a bad but narrowly-focused product for addicts/fetishists and make money off it because there aren't that many products for them"

    is the logic behind a great many industries (porn, contemporary fine art, video game industry support products, superhero comics etc.) that continuously put out products that make money but that aren't very good and have (and historically have needed to have) very little crossover-appeal outside the people they sell to.

    It is a formula for aesthetic conservatism, in other words (not that you said anything about this one way or the other in your post).

    I am hesitant to recommend any company adopt the "It-doesn't-matter-who-we-get-to-draw-Spiderman-because-there-are-exactly 20,000-Spider-Man-readers-every-month-who-will-buy-it-anyway" approach for this reason.

    That is: I'm a (theoretical) consumer of products for RPG companies, not an accountant for RPG companies, I am much less interested in them making money than them maybe, once, ever, putting out something that isn't crap. (Maybe you agree with this, maybe not--I don't know).

    I think if you are going for a narrow market and have a small budget and are in an industry (like the RPG industry) which you are only in because you like it, I advise:

    Make the best thing you possibly can, package it for sale as well as you possibly can and then just pray.

    Because if you want to budget and target and do the math, the math, honestly, will tell you: do less than your best work, and for god's sake get out of this business.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Oh, and if you are making a product for niche fetishists who'll buy anything--take advantage of that fact and make the most insane, fucked up thing you possibly can.

    ReplyDelete
  6. (The following is scattered, sorry. I'm in a real state today: lead paint in the walls, still-sick toddler, creatures in the apartment, etc.)

    That is: I'm a (theoretical) consumer of products for RPG companies, not an accountant for RPG companies, I am much less interested in them making money than them maybe, once, ever, putting out something that isn't crap. (Maybe you agree with this, maybe not--I don't know).

    We agree on this, at least, 100%. I think I only posted this back-of-envelope thinking as a way of convincing myself I shouldn't get annoyed at the abject shittiness of almost everything made for public entertainment.

    Oh, and if you are making a product for niche fetishists who'll buy anything--take advantage of that fact and make the most insane, fucked up thing you possibly can.

    The trouble - as with the new 'Thing' movie - is that you might not take your words, there, as a call to indulge all your bad habits, but every Hollywood motherfucker answerable to his shareholders is going to. 'Artists' worthy of the name still do the prep, still do the technical work, still master the form. Or master something. They have a reason to do the work, beyond their own impulses. They wanna give, to connect.

    (I bet we agree broadly that art is for connection, else it's just practice - though I imagine we could find a way to argue around that agreement anyfuckinghow.)

    I'll say this for James - he built a solid, fairly conventional D&D-derived RPG and waved a tissue scented with Weird at it. But the system works swell, by all accounts, and he took that aspect of it seriously. Good art in that regard. I'm not sure 'conservative' actually functions solely as an insult in art though.

    The argument about whether LotFP is itself aesthetically conservative is for another time.

    I think Vornheim is a mixed success in this regard. It's the most inspirational, impressive product from LotFP in my opinion (pg13 is one of the coolest RPG maps I've ever seen), but the 'Let's put on a Broadway play in our garage!'-style layout - cramped text, unstintingly dense and dark look, undifferentiated headings, hard-to-read tables, even typographical foibles like the confusing misuse of bullets on pg10 - seems like a misfire, an acceptance of limitations instead of their solution. The book is (to me) almost unskimmable - you can sample it but it's hard to search, which is the eventual fate of most RPG volumes...

    In other words, I've seen Vornheim's weak spots before. Something conservative there, even?

    Not sure where I'm going, here. I guess I've heard/watched/read enough stultifying punk-by-numbers independent art to think that the only guaranteed formula for aesthetic conservatism is selfishness, and I'll be happier when I spend less time worrying about these things and try harder to be honest than right. Or something.

    Good luck all.

    ReplyDelete
  7. @wally

    All that accepted, 2 things:

    -I purposefully made it easy to use and skimmable for me: headings down the side in big letters, all information on a given topic on one page etc. If it is hard for you to read, that's a difference of mental wiring and maybe amount of eyesight left. Making a product I myself would not use and feel is full of wasted and ugly space just to make money would be the height of selfishness.

    -I am honestly asking you a question here: what exactly is your beef with the bullet points on page ten? Bullet points are traditionally used to set off "points" in an argument or plan but I really really really really really really really really really reallyreally really really really reallyreally really really really reallyreally really really really reallyreally really really really reallyreally really really really reallyreally really really really reallyreally really really really reallyreally really really really reallyreally really really really reallyreally really really really reallyreally really really really reallyreally really really really reallyreally really really really reallyreally really really really reallyreally really really really reallyreally really really really reallyreally really really really reallyreally really really really reallyreally really really really reallyreally really really really reallyreally really really really reallyreally really really really reallyreally really really really reallyreally really really really reallyreally really really really reallyreally really really really reallyreally really really really reallyreally really really really reallyreally really really really reallyreally really really really reallyreally really really really reallyreally really really really reallyreally really really really reallyreally really really really reallyreally really really really reallyreally really really really reallyreally really really really reallyreally really really really reallyreally really really really reallyreally really really really reallyreally really really really reallyreally really really really reallyreally really really really reallyreally really really really reallyreally really really really reallyreally really really really really would like you to explain what exactly "confuses" you about using these graphic elements to separate elements in a list of superstitions. Like do you read the list and go "Wait, people of Vornheim think 'Pigs are the most honest animals' bbbut--it's in bullets! what does it all mean? This is a serious question and I would really appreciate an answer.

    ReplyDelete
  8. And, to people who seem to constantly make this mistake:

    I am asking a question because I am curious about what the answer to this question could possibly be, not because asking a question is my way of complaining.

    ReplyDelete
  9. really really really really really really really really really reallyreally really really really reallyreally really really really reallyreally really really really reallyreally really really really reallyreally really really really reallyreally really really really reallyreally really really really reallyreally really really really reallyreally really really really reallyreally really really really reallyreally really really really reallyreally really really really reallyreally really really really reallyreally really really really reallyreally really really really reallyreally really really really reallyreally really really really reallyreally really really really reallyreally really really really reallyreally really really really reallyreally really really really reallyreally really really really reallyreally really really really reallyreally really really really reallyreally really really really reallyreally really really really reallyreally really really really reallyreally really really really reallyreally really really really reallyreally really really really reallyreally really really really reallyreally really really really reallyreally really really really reallyreally really really really reallyreally really really really reallyreally really really really reallyreally really really really reallyreally really really really reallyreally really really really reallyreally really really really reallyreally really really really reallyreally really really really reallyreally really really really reallyreally really really really reallyreally really really really reallyreally really really really really

    Sure - thanks for asking.

    My issue with the page-edge text is that those fat-ass letters in that narrow space read as sludge to me - not least because those big fat round letters lose their visual identities a hell of a lot faster than thin type when turned sideways.

    My problem with page 10 is that tightly-packed two-column text like that needs extra massaging to bullet well. The paragraphs really do crash together for me. The left-hand column of bullets is shoved very close to the margin text, rendering it partly visible; the line of bullets down the center of the page is pulled at by both text columns, so while it's clear which column the bullets match up with, there's an extra brain-step to do that matching.

    Obviously long-term table use of the book would make these things less taxing - but I couldn't reach that point, because of the tax. Does that make sense?

    To me, the page looks like one-column text squeezed into two columns without time to fix the visual infelicities that the squeezing and column-doubling caused. It looks like Microsoft Word intruded on your art book.

    Same thing with the d20 table on page 11 - the center-justified text in the left-hand column damages my comprehension. The table isn't unreadable, it's just unpleasant (which is a readability matter stated in different terms, you might say). And that's my problem with Vornheim in general: I love the art and the writing, but it doesn't do as well in terms of information design. Unfortunately, it's a technical manual of sorts, but the technical side doesn't do as much for me as the 'aesthetic' side.

    WotC get rightly pilloried for the shittiness of their RPG content, but their layout work is usually impeccable - they design good tables, stat blocks, page layouts. The books work, even when the games don't. Low floor, low ceiling.

    I hope that's helpful. I've no interest in fighting or insulting, here. My experience(s) of reading Vornheim ended up being a source of great frustration to me despite the plentiful pleasures of the text, and I hope this attempt at description/explanation on my end is useful.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Ok, so this is all actually "I, Wally, am wired, brainwise, unlike you" that's it.

    All the things you have (graciously and specifically) pointed out as making it hard for you to read make it easier for me to read or are nonissues.

    The only real bone of contention here is:

    I ask you to realize this is a taste and "visual parsing algorithm" issue, not anything having to do with "an acceptance of limitations" or Microsoft word or anything else that isn't subjective.

    As for WOTC's design, for my purposes it sucks shit:

    http://dndwithpornstars.blogspot.com/2011/03/arrows-and-boxes-and-columns-and-bullet.html?zx=770405c474c3d504

    However, if you like WOTC design, that proves my point: it's a taste thing. You are over there and like those things and I am over here and like these things.

    Nothing could ever be too dark or too dense for me, and I would not like myself or what I made if it was (yet another) attempt to figure out what the middle of the road wants rather than something I made for the underserved part of the market to which I, and the part of the population whose brains work like mine, belong.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Nothing could ever be too dark or too dense for me, and I would not like myself or what I made if it was (yet another) attempt to figure out what the middle of the road wants rather than something I made for the underserved part of the market to which I, and the part of the population whose brains work like mine, belong.

    Since most of the things I want to say in response to your comment are less about visual design than about your psychology, and that's probably not gonna help anyone today, I'll restrict myself to two comments, the first of which I offer in earnest generosity of spirit, after which I will give in a bit to my annoyance at your defensiveness and decision to grandstand a little bit today.

    1) You'll eventually realize that 'the middle of the road' isn't the only alternative to 'my niche.' And when you do, I will be there to buy everything you put your name on. Plenty of other folks will too.

    2) Your comment about WotC design reminds me of the folks I went to grad school with. You went to Yale, right? You've surely met them too.

    I don't 'like WotC's design.' I don't think anyone alive 'likes' it. It's tech-manual design, the very definition of blandness. The phrase you're looking for is (put somewhat snarkily), 'everyone who wants to use their shit can use it without stopping to notice the "aesthetic."'

    Please don't try to reduce usability to 'taste.'

    ReplyDelete
  12. Shorter me:

    or nonissues

    hahahahahaha

    ReplyDelete
  13. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  14. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  15. @wally

    In the post I linked to I made a very long argument about usability, not aesthetic. I don't know if you read it, but that's what's in there.

    And, again:

    Increasing usability to you will decrease usability to me. I have to make a choice.

    If you put out a book full of things I want to read yet it is laid out to be more usable to you than me, then I would have to respect that and realize -our brains work differently- and not complain you've somehow made an objectively poor decision by not catering to me.

    p.s.
    the "nonissues" thing was not "nonissue as in i don't care so shut up" i simply meant to say the things you pointed out either made it easier for me to read or were nonissues for me--they didn't affect my ability to read it either way.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Poor guy.


    ______Moral of the story: if you're putting all your eggs in the "I'm a big graphic design nerd" basket at least do the reading first_____________

    ReplyDelete