Word from Hobbiton

If you had asked me in the 90s who my favorite filmmaker was, I probably would have said Quentin Tarentino. Not only did I find his movies immensely enjoyable, I found they really spoke to my sensibilities (if that makes any sense)…maybe one Gen X’er communicating with another through their visual craft. And perhaps he still might be my favorite: I haven’t seen Django but I hear it’s pretty good.

However, having NOT seen Django, I was willing to pass the title of “favorite filmmaker” to Peter Jackson after seeing his latest film, The Hobbit. Simply put, Jackson creates beautiful films.

And I don’t just mean visually beautiful (which they are…stunningly so). His films are filled with beautiful SENTIMENT. And it IS beautiful…it is "heartfelt." Even District 9…you feel for the protagonist despite him being a rank bastard. But especially with movies like King Kong and The Hobbit, Jackson just finds ways to put beautiful little nuances of sentiment on the screen. And (to me) it’s wonderful to see. 

I liked The Hobbit, and I liked it a lot. Even though he took liberties with Tolkien’s words, for the most part (we’ll get to that in moment) he used those liberties to communicate the sentiment and themes Tolkien was trying to communicate. Sure it was perhaps a trifle heavy handed (Gandalf’s council with the elves), but it’s pretty tough to communicate the themes of a novel into a film, when you have to use exposition to explain what is communicated through the inner monologues of an author’s characters. Especially when you’re breaking up a single novel into multiple movies (and yet want to echo the same theme across each installment…): you can’t just have Thorin on his death bed saying “yeah, maybe we should value good cheer and simple pleasures over hoarded gold,” with nothing of the sentiment in the first film.

[sorry if that’s a spoiler: I just figure most of my blog readers have read the book in the past]

What I also greatly enjoyed was the elaboration Jackson brought to the film. I saw The Hobbit with my buddy Steve-O who said “that was cool how they connected the quest against the dragon with the threat of Smaug allying with Sauron.” But this wasn’t a Jackson invention: Gandalf’s motivations with regard to the dwarves’ quest is discussed at length in the appendix of Tolkien’s later book Return of the King. Including this information in the film not only shows P-Jack (or his screenwriters) have done their homework, it also helps tie the film to his earlier (LotR) films.

Meanwhile, Jackson’s portrayal of Thorin’s anti-elf sentiment (which IS present in the book) gives new meaning to the feud while shedding light on it. Of course the proud dwarf bears some resentment to the pointy-eared folk for their lack of aid to his people…it’s not a radical interpretation, it’s a LOGICAL interpretation. Reading Shakespeare’s plays, one finds a surprising lack of stage directions considering all the on-stage action that takes place…the actions and character motivations must be interpreted from the dialogue…and Jackson does the same thing with Tolkien’s words.  Same with other characters (like Radaghast the Brown).

Other “liberties” are just the necessity of film adaptation: why is Thorin the hero at the gates of Moria instead of Dain? Because Dain isn’t a central character to the main story being told (his role is combined in Thorin’s character, just as Glorfindel was combined into Arwen in the Fellowship film). Why does Jackson stage this elaborate chase/warg fight (following the troll scene) that is never found in the book? Because it enables the filmmaker to drive Thorin & Co. into Rivendell (when it’s been established that Thorin will have nothing to do with the elves). Why do the trolls end up eating the horses (instead of the goblins in the mountains)? Because of the complexity of filming ponies on a mountain pass. Why is Bilbo the troll trickster (as opposed to Gandalf as in the book?)? Because the film-maker has to show a bit of Bilbo’s ingenuity, courage, and cunning which (prior to later chapters of the book) are otherwise only present in the character’s inner thoughts at this point in the story…if Jackson doesn’t SHOW something of this, visually (film being a visual medium), you end up with a very passive and non-factor protagonist.

In a book, there’s nothing passive about Bilbo’s role…told from his point of view the story features his inner struggles throughout the book (with whether he wants to be a hero or not, or take the tough road or not). There is an inner conflict of the Everyman character which (while dramatic in a novel form) needs to be reinterpreted for a different art form. And Jackson does a good job of it, in my opinion.

NOW, having said all that and heaping praise on the film, I have to voice my main gripe:

What’s with all the goddamn fighting?

Much as I enjoyed the film, much as I liked Jackson’s interpretations and liberties and creativity, the martial take and action sequences nearly killed the whole deal for me. Not because I’m a bleeding-heart liberal commie-socialist…I ENJOY action and violence in films immensely (just picked up a Blue-Ray copy of John Woo’s Hard Boiled the other day). Films and fiction (and role-playing) are for me, the only deserving place FOR violence and fighting, not the real world.

No, my issue is how out-of-place the martial attitude was. Not only was this NOT “true to the books” (in this way the film went WAY off the rails from Tolkien’s sentiment), it also did little (if anything) to contribute to the story being told. For me, it DETRACTED from the story.

There was SO much focus on combat and fighting that comparing the Hobbit film to the Hobbit novel (or even the earlier animated film) is like comparing 4^th edition D&D to the old TSR editions. It’s like it misses the f’ing point for the sake of catering to the lowest common denominator. Or (to put my rant a little differently) it’s like Peter Jackson suddenly decided his target audience was too stupid to enjoy the film without throwing in a bunch of LotR-style fight scenes (LotR is, after all, a war story, but it’s not the fight scenes that made it a great film).

No, I’m not upset that visually the dwarves look like characters from a Capital One commercial (“What’s in YOUR wallet?”); being based in part on Nordic myth has always made Tolkien characters seem a little Viking-esque. And Thorin IS a warrior-noble type (the main fighter of the group) and his nephews (Filli and Killi) are cut from the same cloth (at least, judging by their particular end…sorry again for the spoiler) as well as old Balin (his lieutenant) and by reasonable assumption Dwalin (Balin’s brother).

BUT (for example…and here there be FILM spoilers, FYI)…BUT when the hobbit gets caught by the trolls and the dwarves launch a frontal assault leading to an elaborate set-piece combat, it just about made me want to retch with disgust. Those who have read The Hobbit five or six times (like myself) will remember that the dwarves come looking for Bilbo and get popped into the troll sacks except for Thorin…who comes later, is sneakier, and manages to bash a troll upside the head with a log from the fire before being caught. This establishes a couple things:

-          Tone setting (danger and jeopardy)

-          Character development (dwarf loyalty, good-heartedness)
-          Character development (Thorin’s cunning and fight-worthiness)

Instead, the film gives us a ridiculous fight scene that establishes nothing except that dwarves seem to be spoiling for a fight at every opportunity (even the stupid slingshot guy…I mean, how stupid is that dwarf? What happened to “discretion being the better part of valor?”). The dwarves are still captured and look dumb in the process. Thorin is not shown to be “a cut above the rest.” And we learn nothing new about the dangers of Middle Earth…I mean wouldn’t you already get Big Scary Danger + Drama & Tension if the scene were filmed as written? Don’t you want to contrast these particular dwarves in comparison to the heroic companions of the Fellowship of the Ring (whom, one might recall, have a fight with a troll in the Mines of Moria. Thorin & Co. look  like they’re on par with Aragorn, etc. and that the only reason for their defeat was that they faced THREE trolls instead of one).

The same happens again with the wargs in the plains…and then again with the goblins in the Misty Mountains. They’re captured fighting and then they fight their way non-stop over miles of subterranean scaffolding (what’s with all the wood in the goblin caves? The orcs sure don’t look much like carpenters to me…a major, glaring plot point to my eyes).

It’s as if Jackson decided, ‘well the film’s not really exciting enough’ or ‘it’s not visually stunning enough.’ It IS exciting enough, it IS a visual delight for the eyes, it DOES carry nuanced character development besides “we like to fight” (and I mean, JACKSON’s film has character nuance, in many ways more so than Tolkien’s book). Frankly, I found it boring and tedious…I found myself waiting for each elaborate fight sequence to end so that we could get to the next cool thing about Middle Earth…Rivendell, or Gollum’s cave, or the flight of the Eagles, or the house of Beorn or whatever.

Instead, I got long, empty minutes of elaborate sword fights. Yes, I get the point Mr. Jackson: your dwarves are really tough and quick to draw down on someone. Enough already.

HOWEVER…having gotten that gripe out of the way, I want to reiterate that I otherwise greatly enjoyed everything else in the film. Everything else was a delight and very much in the spirit of Tolkien’s most whimsical novel of Middle Earth: Radaghast and his rabbits, the White Orc and his albino warg, Elrond and his brethren in their mail (though why O why are there statues of warriors guarding the bridge to Rivendell? I don’t remember the elves celebrating their martial pride at the Last Homely House!), the Necromancer’s stronghold, the prelude/montage showing the sack and burning of Dale and Erebor. The music was good (though I sorely missed the goblins’ wicked songs!), tasteful and well-done, and as said, the whole film was quite beautiful. I am excited to see the next installment, and hope that we’ll continue visual feast as we see Mirkwood and the halls of the wood elves and Lake Town and all the rest.

But I also hope that there’ll be a lot less fighting. At least when it comes to fighting that is superfluous to an already excellent and entertaining story.

Movie Madness

Ya' know, I've been so busy with...well, you know...stuff...that I've completely neglected to mention all the films I've been watching lately. Things like Avatar in 3-D and Ninja Assassin (at the Crest $3 movie theater). And of course all the Netflix like the post-apocalyptic 9 and Pixar's Up.

All great movies in their own way for certain...amazing, visually stunning, fantastic cinema (and home cinema) experiences. People are really starting to throw down when it comes to the film medium.

Of course, I'm a movie guy, so I'd watch 'em anyway even without all the fancy-shmancy F/X (saw Up in the Air as well); I like to watch old movies and re-watch movies (even old ones...saw Lost Horizon again and it's still great).

Anyway, I know there's been snarky talk on the blogs lately about all the poorly done pulp getting ready to hit the celluloid: Solomon Kane, Burroughs, new Conan. However, I'm more excited about a NON-pulp fantasy movie already in the works: The Hobbit.

Yes, I realize I have written some less-than-kind words about Bilbo Baggins in the past, but that was specific to some of the impact on the RPG industry. I love The Hobbit; I've read it at least 3-5 times, and have watched the Bakshi film at least as many (probably more). In fact, I saw the film before I ever picked up my first D&D game, or even the Dungeon! board game. The Hobbit may not be the main basis for fantasy role-playing but it was certainly MY first inspiration.

Anyway, Peter Jackson is producing and Guillermo del Toro is directing. I think del Toro is awesome. My wife introduced me to del Toro with his film Cronos (she's been a fan for awhile) and Pan's Labyrinth is one of my favorite films of the last five years. His ability to tell the dark fairy tale is something I really appreciate...I like the grim Grimms' tale, much moreso than the Disney-fied versions.

So I've been excited ever since I heard he'd signed onto the project: and one thing I've been telling anyone who will listen is I sure hope he takes a look at Dragonslayer before throwing together some lame-ass CGI critter for Smaug. You have JB? Yeah, I have. In fact, I was just saying it over brunch yesterday when discussing the upcoming film with some friends.

So now check out THIS quote I found today:

"One of the best and one of the strongest landmarks that almost nobody can overcome is Dragonslayer [a 1981 movie]. The design of the Vermithrax Pejorative is perhaps one of the most perfect creature designs ever made..."

As well as this on-line conversation with Jackson and del Toro. I won't bother quoting it here, but frankly I can't help but think one of my favorite novels of childhood is in truly excellent hands.

It's too bad the film isn't scheduled for release till 2011 (I do hate waiting), but at least we'll be able to see it before 2012 (when the world goes up in flames). Woo-hoo!

Generic Unfocused Role-Playing Systems

So, yesterday was Veteran’s Day (no comment) and I didn’t post anything as I slept in till one, spent the day mostly doing yard work, and then finished up watching the Firefly series with my wife. Regarding the latter, I have managed to get my lovely spouse addicted to the series over the last couple weeks, and boy was she pissed when we got through the last episode: how dare this show get cancelled! And this is from a woman with immense dislike/disdain for a) westerns, and b) science fiction. Guess it was a good show, huh? Stupid FOX network.

ANYWAY, I did have a chance to wander down to Gary’s and read through the GURPS core books (now in its 4th edition!), but I just didn’t take the time to post my opinion. Please allow me to do so now (if briefly):

First, let me just say that GURPS, in its current incarnation seems very nice, smart, and even a little sexy. The system is of course elegant in its own way, certainly consistent, and GURPS is perhaps the best supported game on the market in terms of both quantity and quality of supplemental texts.

The fact that it’s divided into two core books is a bit off-putting (to me) who would prefer RPGs to return to the days of smaller more concise rule sets, but whatever. The main thing I wanted to look for was anything that would stand out as clear objectives of game play in the book…i.e. does anything in the rule set tell one how to play this damn game in the first place? This is due to the comment thread on my axiom post of the other day; check it out to see what I mean.

See, to me it appears that one thing RPG designers have gotten away from is explaining just what the hell people are expected to do with their gigantic rule books. Game authors simply assume that people buying their games are role-players who have played before or have friends who have, and who are going to simply using the author’s new game to play the same way they always have, just using a new set of rules. I believe this is a problem for a couple/few different reasons:

1 – it completely neglects the idea of growing the hobby, by limiting texts to existing role-players.
2 – it assumes that all role-playing gamers “play the same way” as the game author (which may not be accurate)
3 – it assumes that existing gamers know how to play the damn game (at least in the fashion the designer intends).

Now that being said, GURPS is a game that’s been around for awhile and has a pretty decent following, and since I don’t play it, who am I to knock it?

Well, how about a potential player (with a game this large should I call myself a “potential investor?”)? I buy A LOT of games, and some (like Palladium) that might raise eyebrows from some folks. A game has got to offer me SOMEthing, though, if I am going to make a purchase and I can’t help take a critical eye to any prospective game.

So back to “clear objectives;” does GURPS have ‘em?

Well, not that I could find in the player’s book. This is simply a huge guide to making a character for the GURPS game. Subject to GM approval, of course. Created with an eye towards what’s “fun” to play, of course. With plenty of options for making a “heroic” character, of course.

Interestingly, GURPS points out that their character creation system is NOT as realistic as it could be, as “realism” would require randomness in chargen, rather than a balanced point buy (after all, some people are born smart AND strong, and some people are born neither). However, GURPS points out its system is designed to provide “game balance” (so that some characters don’t upstage others) AND also allows players to create HEROIC characters (rather than Joe Shmoes).

I call this interesting because it is very straight-forward and matter-o-fact about things other games do, but simply assume “need not be present in writing.” I give GURPS a thumbs up for being smart and classy even if, right here, it pretty much loses my interest (because I’m not interested particularly in playing characters that are “balanced” or “heroic” and I am no fan of the drawn-out process of point-buy chargen).

Still, it doesn’t tell non-GM players what exactly they’re supposed to do, except “look to the GM.” Ugh.

Now the GM Book DOES have some information on how to create an adventure and run a game, which is a step up from Rifts, but it’s still pretty abstract about it…and even a bit disingenuous from what I’d see as the GURPS stance. I’ll get to the latter point in a second; basically, the books states it is the GM’s job to CHALLENGE the players (though it doesn’t specify whether this means challenging the players, their characters, or both). GMs are supposed to use their role and understanding of the system to craft adventures that offer “a challenge.”

There is even a sidebar on “dungeons” (!!) and creating site-based adventures. Here we see the origin of the GURPS game…someone wanted to do D&D with an elegant, consistent system (that included rules for skills, advantages, and disadvantages) that could be easily ‘ported to other genres. Ugh…here I thought Steve Jackson had more high-minded motivations…I know a lot of people use GURPS for reasons other than creating site-based adventures.

But that’s just it. GMs are supposed to “challenge” their players? Really? Your telling me GURPS is designed to facilitate a gamist creative agenda?

If such is the case, where’s the meta-game? In the character creation system (min-maxing through the point-buy?)? In simply being smarter than the GM or the other players (where’s the “balance” in that?!)?

And here I thought GURPS was best suited for facilitating the simulationist, with setting books like “The Prisoner” and “Renaissance Italy.” I guess those supplements were simply written to allow players to be challenged by GMs in different settings, rather than allowing exploration of the unique setting material. Wow…I was waaay off! ; )

SO anyway, not exactly what I’m looking for in a game. I am too old, too busy, and (yes) too lazy to spend the time learning a universal system when I don’t personally believe all role-playing games can be distilled to universal game mechanics. I just don’t. Gamma World would not benefit from a GURPS-like system and neither would Hubris Game’s Maelstrom RPG (the former doesn’t require the extra rules to play, the latter is played with a system that resolves scenes not tasks…in many ways Maelstrom is far more elegant than GURPS). And as a stand-alone game? Eh…it’s a little bland (despite being sexier than its predecessors), while still somehow seeming “over-produced.”

On the other hand…for RPGs with cool settings that have totally lame systems (or settings that don’t HAVE RPGs), one could do a lot worse than picking up GURPS and the corresponding supplement (I see GURPS did a Blue Planet supplement in 2002). But you’ll probably need to bring your own clear, specific objectives to the table with you.

: )

I Never Met A Game I Didn't Like...

…until I met Steve Jackson.

Actually, that’s not entirely true. The FIRST Steve Jackson game I met was Car Wars (“Deluxe” edition!) and I played the hell out of it. GURPS, though, and (especially) Toon occupy very low rungs on the ladder of “games I’ve played."

However, I HAVE played them (the latter more than the former), unlike many of the games I’ve collected in recent years (Aberrant, DeadLands, Terra Primate). When I was a kid, we played A LOT of games. Wow…talk about the “good ol’ days.”

Today, people are so married to one particular game or game system that they refuse to play anything else. To me, this is totally crazy. I know that I’m not a total aberration for enjoying a diversity of games in different genres with different systems. But especially with younger folks it seems to be “D20 or the Highway” often enough (older folks are often "Champions or the Highway;" go figure).

Frankly, I find this lazy and believe it actually discourages the intellectual stimulation that RPGs can provide.

“Oh, but it’s too hard!” whine some folks. Too much investment of time and money to learn a new game, they say. To which I say, “bullshit.” You are picking the wrong game. Steer the fuck clear of games that require hundreds of dollars and hundreds of pages of rules to digest. Buy the slim, trim games, or a retro-clone, or an older, used game and kit-bash the rules you don’t like. There’s an f-ing smorgasbord to sample out there.

“But I only like fantasy!” whine others. Really? Do you only watch fantasy movies? ‘Cause there are precious few out there and many (most) are simply atrocious. Try a different genre…you might like it. Robot Jox may look shitty on the big screen, but BattleTech can be kick-ass on the table-top.

“I have no one to play ‘weird’ games with!” There’s a whole goddamn network called the internet that never existed when I was a kid. If you can’t LEAD your own buddies into gaming diversity, find some new ones.

When I was a kid, my allowance (when I received one at all) ranged from $.25 to $1 per week. Even in the 1980s that was six weeks of saving to buy a single module (if that money didn’t get spent elsewhere). Later on, I worked during the summers, but since I had to pay for my own entertainment (movies, books, etc.) not to mention save for college (my parents didn’t pay), and a trip to Japan (Summer of 1991), precious little of this got spent on gaming. And my parents haven’t bought me a single game (even as a gift!), since my Cook Expert set.

And yet by the time I finished high school had managed to PLAY, not just own:

D&D (B/X, AD&D, BECMI), Boot Hill, Gamma World, Star Frontiers, Top Secret, James Bond, GURPS, Toon, Car Wars, Star Wars (WEG), Heroes Unlimited, TMNT, Rifts, Teenagers from Outer Space, Robotech, ElfQuest, Stormbringer, Battletech/MW, Traveller, Amber, Shadow Run, Vampire the Masquerade, Twilight 2000, Dragon Quest, Dragon Light(?), Marvel Superheroes (basic & advanced), CyberPunk...crap, I’m sure I’m forgetting a couple.

I managed to do this because I wasn’t the sole person responsible for the gaming. Most of MY money (up through middle school) was heavily invested in AD&D. But different friends would bring different games to the table, and it was actively encouraged by the rest of us. Though I was “the designated DM” often enough, when it was someone else’s game, he or she was responsible for teaching the rules and running the game. The rest of us had the responsibility to be open and receptive, and generally respectful, since we hoped to be treated the same when our turn came.

Looking at games I’ve discovered since college (Ars Magica, Call of Cthulhu, Over The Edge, Sorcerer), I can’t help but wish I'd found them sooner, as I’m sure some of my past gaming groups would have enjoyed the hell out of ‘em. But thems the breaks. I hate to see people limiting themselves to famine when there is so much feast out there to be had. Sure, not all of it is great (I’d probably buy Nobilis before I’d ever run a game of Immortal: The Invisible War…and I doubt I’ll ever find a group interested in Terra Primate!), but even as an occasional break from a long term D&D campaign, it’s great to have some diversity.

Variety is the spice of life, ja?
: )