That would be useful - I like to blow away my main drive at times (I'm always installing weird software that eventually crufts things up) - this way I could put/home on a different drive, and / on the main one so I wouldn't have to keep copying things over when I need to replace imovie3 with imovie2 for some weird reason.
Thats why I stay away from games like that. Even though most people claim they're dead [slashdot.org], I still would rather play a good MUD then Everquest. Most of these idiots play because of the pretty pictures and they don't have to use their mind. With text games, you have the mature types that would rather tell a good story then get the 'l33t' gear. Of course, every now-and-then you still get the idiot who logs in and tries to ruin the feel of the game, but not nearly as much with the MMORPG's or FPS's.
I totally agree - the few online games that I've gone back to once every few months (mainly to keep my characters alive until I get more time to play). You can actually do more emotions/interactions with text than canned graphics. People seem to be more polite than graphical games (perhaps because you need more imagination). There's still a lot of good with MUDS - it would be interesting if someone could make a MMRPG with the MUD like ability - might give it more life and abilities.
I used to play online games when they first came out (Quake, Unreal, etc).
But then I discovered that what Dave Barry once said was true:
On the Internet, everybody is only twelve years old.
For a time, I played some good old Capture The Flag Quake - loved that game. But too many "Hey, motherfucker DarkPaladin! You're gay!" when you start doing well, or "Fucking cheat!" when you kill somebody, etc, etc, etc.
I mean - that's just no fun. Most people online are assholes - they live in the games like Everquest, Ultima Online, Unreal Tournament - all of them. If I play games these days, its only with either myself or people that I know.
Sadly, the "average person" is the biggest ruining factor for online gaming. Then again, after watching my teenage nephews play games, it's almost made me want to ban anybody under the "mental" age of 18 from playing games. At least until they learn to RTFM. (That's another subject for another day.)
As a Linux switcher to OS X (and for the folks who are making their Linux apps compilable on OS X - thanks!), I can see the good and bad of this. Right now, my main desktop/laptop are Mac boxes, but I still have another 3 machines in the house still running Windows - my wife's work machine (soon to be retired after we move and she doesn't have to work), my Game box (because Raven Shield probably doesn't run under Wine), and my Linux server for my web server/mail server/etc.
I would love to switch my Linux box to a Mac OS X server box, mainly just to play around with another OS I haven't tried yet, and because I think it will be easier to maintain. For $1000 for an unlimited server licence, I could deal with that. (Yes, I could just go 10 for $500, but I'm evil that way.) The problem is that even finding an old Mac (like a G4 cube) is around $1000 even on Ebay.
The good part about OS X on Intel is that the machines would be damn cheap. I could probably take my current Windows P-800 machine and turn it into a decent - not great, but decent OS X server box. Cheap boxes with a great OS would be the true "Microsoft desktop killer" we've been waiting for. The operating system (OS X) is tried and true now, it's excellent, stable, and kicks Microsoft's ass all over the place.
But the problem in moving to the Intel platform is threefold:
1. Performance. Going from the PPC with all of its registers to Intel's platform will cost some performance - especially if some sort of PPC emulator is used to make all of the old apps run.
2. Drivers. Right now, Apple can ensure that every video card that's qualified to run on a Mac will run, and run without a problem. I've stuck all sorts of hardware into my Mac so far, and it all works flawlessly. Apple will lose that ability.
3. Cheap hardware. Yes, Apple's hardware costs more. And it depreciates a hell of a lot slower than just about any other PCs out there - look at my Cube situation again. These machines are like a rock - they run and run and run. A Compusa employee I once knew mentionted that he hated it when people came into his store and bought a Mac - because he never saw them again, while the Windows guys were in every few months because they "had" to upgrade. So you'll have hardware that won't last as long or as well.
Unless of course, Apple basically brands their own Intel based PCs and ensures that OS X only runs on "certified" machines. Remember - they make money from hardware, not software (though, if OS X became popular and runs on all Intel systems, they could become the next Microsoft in many ways, only with a decent desktop and server system).
I honestly don't believe that it's going to happen. Apple will most likely shift to IBM's new Power970 line - it's the most like the PPC, so no translators/emulators. IBM has a vested interest in making these chips fast and plentiful for their server systems, unlike Motorola which is making PPC chips for - well, pretty much Apple.
Anyway, there's my $0.02. And of course, I could be wrong.
I've only heard two Earthbound rumors so far myself:
1. That there will be a Gameboy Advance re-release of Earthbound 1+2 (the SNES version was 2, the NES version was never officially released in the US, but the ROM version is available if you look hard).
2. There are also rumblings of an Earthbound 3 for the Gamecube. Which would kick ass. We need more insane RPG's that involve you fighting alien posessed lamps.
I do development work (well, or did, but that's another isue), and the Lnux systems use Tomcat with Java 1.4 - mainly because it has the Regular Expressions stuff built in.
I usually develop things on my Mac laptop, then transfer thing over to the official test system. But since I only had Java 1.3, it was harder to develop my stuff for them - I had to have a separate Linux box just for me to use as a mini-server.
Well, I no longer work there and am about to take another job, but at least I an update my system and work on my new web publishing system.
My only fear? That Java 1.5 will be released in a few weeks....
Granted, it was rather short, and it rather thunked you over the head with its message rather than letting the story give it to you - but there were elements that were incredibly well done.
First, the animation itself - a mix of hand-drawn and computer technology in the realm of Lain and Blood: The Last Vampire, only to an even better and more refined degree.
Then there were the images within the artwork. Probably the most disturbing scene in the first Animatrix video shows a women having her clothes torn off by a mob, and that sick feeling filling your gut as a man walks forward and bashes her in the head with a club - only to reveal that she's a robot, and as her all-too human looking breasts spill from her town shirt and her metallic head revealed, your both drawn and repelled by the feeling of how horrible to kill a woman in distress - except she isn't a woman at all. And yet, does that make it any more right?
So far, it's been an interesting lead in to the whole Matrix mythos. I'm downloading the second episode now (90 minutes to go) with high hopes.
I would have thought either Sega (with Steel Battalion, etc), or Tecmo (DOA3, DOA Vollyball). But even looking at Sega's games on the Xbox, they're mostly "experimental" - games that aren't going to draw the big sales (Panzer Dragoon Orta, while a good game, isn't a big ticket seller like the next major Sonic game might be). But Xbox gets Toejam and Earl (crash and burn), Jet Radio Future (decent game, but not a major seller).
Metro3D is a possibility - they've been releasing a rash of Xbox games (and "rash" is the right word - Metal Dungeon (shudder)).
Really? I remember having an Odyssey as a child, and rather enjoyed it. Granted, I was only 5, and my parents didn't get me any other console my entire life, and it wasn't until I was 25 I started buying consoles (and totally fell in love with them....)
But I rather enjoyed the games at the time. Granted, they were pretty much clones of other games (Space Invaders, racing, etc), but I liked it.
Something I've been looking over for the last little bit, and especially since the last Keynote address (as a recent convert from Linux desktops to OS X desktops early last year).
Apple seems to be straddling the Open Source thing perfectly, using it in a way that should benefit everybody. (Granted, they aren't perfect, but who is?) They're using the power of OS to build their items (such as kHTML in Safari, Darwin for OS X, etc), then putting on a nice wrapper on the front, and contributing their improvements to the core system. Which is just as it should be - they're not trying to break interoperability with an OS item and claim they did it to make it better, but don't submit the changes to the community (like Kerebros and one company we won't mention).
So I'm watching the X11 and Open Office thing with a lot of interest. Keynote, the new application which is really a Powerpoint replacement, uses XML as its native file format - which again is a Good Thing(TM), as it will allow others to tweak, make improvements that both Apple and the rest of the world could use.
I'm wondering how long it will be until Apple starts up with something like iOffice. Oh, I know they have Appleworks - and there hasn't been any new announcement yet. I can see Keynote this year, maybe Keynote 2 in about 18 months with a dual announcement of Counter (an Excel like system) - powered by the work in Open Office, or some other OS project core.
My current calculations show that Linux will overtake Microsoft in about 3-4 years on the server end. With Open Office, just about every business I've talked to recently has been installing the system, and only getting Microsoft Office for 3%-5% of their business (after all - if you don't have to spend the money for 100% of the company, why bother?).
If Apple/Sun/Open Office/other contributors eventually make the Open Office system as good as Excel (and really, it's all about the Macros, ask any accountant) - then what then? Will a business look at the 3%-5% of their business and say "Well, let's just switch them over too?"
With that, MS Office itself will eventually face the same compition that Microsoft Server products are really starting to face now, and within 7-10 years, MS Office may become marginalized.
Now, think of what happens then. You don't need Windows to run Office. You don't need MS Office - Open Office/Star Office/iOffice does the same, and since they all tie into the XML file format, who cares if you decide to put your business on Linux/Sun/Mac? People who want to stay cheap can go to Linux, others can go to Apple and get a good GUI/easier administration with the same ability, but with a higher cost in hardware/software. Because applications are now spread across operating systems, the operating systems themselves become nearly worthless.
I think Steve Jobs/Apple Co know this, and they're putting the chess pieces on the board. Microsoft will always be around - they'll be like Intel. But I honestly believe that 10 years from now, we'll talk about MS just like we did about IBM back in the early 90's. "Oh, yeah - remember when every computer had Windows on it?"
Microsoft makes money from 4 things: Windows client, Windows server, MS Office, Exchange. (There may be others, like their hardware, but overall, all their other huge investments (Xbox, MSN, handheld, etc) are losing money, boyed by the 85% market we pay for Windows/MS Office). If Windows Server and Microsoft Office become marginalized or have true competition they can't buy out/bully out, how long until the other two become insignificate as well - or until Microsoft truly starts making Office/Exchange for other platforms not as a token "Look, we're not a monopoly", but because they must.
Competition. I believe about 10 years - a long time it may seem, but it feels about right. And Apple is making the right moves to be right there when it happens.
I don't mean to sound like a fanboy - I really don't. I have an Xbox, and technically, it's all good.
But it's the games for me. I like RPG's - and other than Morrowind (which I play on my PC), and Fable (when it comes out), I don't see anything else I really want. I'm not into sports games at all, and most FPS on the consoles don't hook as well as the PC/Mac based ones do.
Probably some others (I might buy Mechassault, but I'd rather have Steel Battalion;) ), but that's about it.
My PS2 and Gamecube list is much greater - again, nothing about the technology, just about the games (Monkey Ball 2, Resident Evil Zero, Xenosaga, Star Ocean III, Suikoden III, etc) that I enjoy.
I do see your point - some of my items are in the Xbox now. I think they're good things - some things I'd like the PS3 to have. And there are things I'd like the Xbox to have (CDDB for the ripped files, USB/Firewire connections so I can plug in a keyboard/mouse, etc).
No system is perfect, so I like to see things better for them all. But for me - I just like the games.
My rule:
Xbox has the best looking games. PS2 has the most games. Gamecube has the best games.
Are you talking about graphics difference as far as:
PS2 > PSOne(on PS2)
Or:
PSOne(on PSOne) > PSOne(on PS2)
If you talking about the former - I agree, there is a graphics difference - but for some of my favorite games (Final Fantasy VII, Lunar, etc), I don't give a crap.
If you're talking the latter, then I haven't seen that myself.
But graphics aren't always the deal. Look at the original Final Fantasy VI (III US), Super Mario Brothers, or the original Pac-Man. Simple graphics (sprite based, granted), but still great. Or Panzer Dragoon Saga - by todays standards, awful graphics (even the movie sequences look dated), but still a great game.
While having super fast graphics/processors/etc is a very good thing (after all, it has to last at least 5 years before the PS4 comes out;) ), here's my own wish list for the PS3:
1. Backwards compatible with the PSOne and PS2. Plenty of great games for those systems still out there, and I still like to play them.
2. Hard drive. This will be needed for the online games (which I don't care about) and add-ons (which I do). While there are games like RPG Maker 2 coming out which use the memory card, I'm more interested in seeing a PC like mod-community surround the PS3 - something we don't have now.
That, and I just don't like memory cards. I must have 20 PSOne memory cards (and most of those backed up to the PC through some third party units). I'd like to be able to swap save games with my friends just by connecting to them online.
3. Built in Ethernet/Modem: I'm assuming that come 2005 we'll still mostly be connecting via 56K modems in some areas, so let's assume that's going to be the case. I don't need a "$10 a month for a central line" - I don't play online that often, and I'd rather just have a few good friends who aren't assholes connect to my PS3 over the 'Net to play.
4. With the Ethernet/Modem, I want a CDDB system for my CD's to store them on the HDD.
5. And, of course, I want a Linux disk to be orderable with the system - just for those of us who like to tinker.
There have been rumors for a little while (see Gamers.com for examples), but nothing concrete until this moment, and Nintendo was in "denial" mode. (This is where they deny all rumors for 4 months, then come out with a press release validating all the rumors - standard for most of the game industry.)
"Backlit" screen - it's really more like the Afterburner, but probably of a higher/clearer quality (without the "blue tint" the Afterburner sometimes gives - not trying to knock the Afterburner, it's a great hack). Long battery life - 10 hour with light on, 18 with light off. Clamshell - as someone who games "on the go" and with a 9 month old son who likes to eat Daddy's GBA, this is a good thing.
The Bad:
Rechargeable batteries - would be nice if we could put AA as a "backup" or something. But Nintendo was against a rock and a hard place - if they allow any third party rechargeable batteries to be put in, there could be compatibility issues (really a non-issue except from a legal "we won't support it if it breaks" kind of thing - kind of like some MP3 players that have their own brand of AA rechargeables).
Form factor: Hm. I'm not sure on how comfortable this will be. Once nice thing about the GBA is while it's a little too small for my 1.5 octave spanning hands, the shape is more forgiving. Here, we have...a square shape. Looking at it, I'm not sold on "long hours with Metroid Fusion without finger cramping". We'll see.
Otherwise, for $90 ($100 after taxes, etc), it looks like a nice evolution for the GBA. Remember your history - Nintendo made several changes to the original GameBoy over it's 10 year life (colors, slimmer, one backlit system, color screen), and Nintendo still has around 50% of the software console market sales locked down (at least when you include that nice sized 35%-40% hold the Gameboy/Gameboy Advance has).
I don't think a video iPod would be a bad thing - personally, I'd like a Palm style PDA with the 5 to 20 G drive inside - that way, I can store all my ebooks (yes, 16 MB has now become too small - thanks, Tolkein and Rowling!), documents, etc.
But for video - something to watch sitting at the couch ("What's that dear? You want me to sit on the couch and watch Pride and Prejudice with you again? Well, that's fine - I'll put Utena on the handheld."). Here's what I'd like to see:
1. A decent DVD ripper. Theoretically, if Apple made it so it only ripped the video to the handheld, they might - just might - avoid the legal entanglements. I know - I'm smoking crack just thinking about it, but this is a wish list. I'd like to stick a DVD into a tray in my Powermac, have it ripped to a 1 to 2 G MP4 file (including subtitles/optional languages taken care of - yes, I'm an anime geek fan, who asked you), then placed on the portable.
2. 802.11/Bluetooth support - yes, that would make copying a 1 G file a long time - but if we're assuming this also does MP3's as well, then I'm just putting the unit in the same room and synching up. Or "streaming" video/music from somewhere else. (Could be used as part of Apple's Digital Hub theory.)
Without turning this into a full fledged PDA, I can't think of what else I'd really like to see. (Well, unless you really want to make me a Gameboy Advance with a 1 G hard drive to cache ROM images of all my games so I don't have to swap cartidges - wait, there's that crack pipe again, my bad.)
This is the main reason why I haven't upgraded my PowerMac yet (and I'm sure Doom III will be out for it...) and the biggest reason why I'm a console guy these days (having converted back with the PSOne hit $99 and I was suckered into playing Final Fantasy VII).
I'm still working on a backlog of games - Alice, Suikoden III, Halo, Metroid Prime, No One Lives Forever 2 (on my PC - the only thing it runs is games these days), and I'm just not as "upgrade conscious" as I was the time I bought a new computer because it didn't run Wing Commander III. (And with games like Ultima VII and the like becoming Open Source projects, I've got an ever bigger backlog;.)
I'm not big into spelling characters names, so if I've misspelled Ghimli or Aragorn or WhoFrigginGivesACrap, please forgive me for not rushing home to open the books and get every letter in the right spot - if you know the stories, you'll know whom I'm talking about.
Get Your Elf Ears On
About a year ago, I made a bet with New Line Cinema. I put up $10, scheduled my time to see the midnight showing of The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring with a bunch of geeks. I mean, we're talking the kind of folk who make their own chain mail, call each other pussies if they haven't read the entire Lord of the Rings trilogy once a year and can't talk Elvish, and girls that are hot. Look, I'm sorry to sound sexist, but geek girls are hot. (Trust me - the smarter the girl, the better they shag.)
I basically bet New Line Cinema they couldn't do it. They couldn't translate Tolkein's epic work into a movie format - even at over 2 hours long. There was too much, the actors would surely suck, and the only reason to go to the midnight showing was to poke fun at the geeks who showed up in their cadaver wax Elf Ears.
Well, the joke was on me. The Fellowship of the Rings turned out to be the True Shit - the kind of movie most Hollywood types can only dream of making. A movie that is, as near as I can figure, perfect: perfect acting, great timing of the plot, special effects that are so subtle you sometimes don't realize they're there, and an attention to detail that would make a compulsive counting accountant weep in envy.
But one year later - could Jackson and his team do it again? The Fellowship turns from the story of a small band of would-be heroes (and the fodder for just about every role playing/fantasy epic that ever existed), into the gigantic tale of war, treachery, and conflict - both great and small.
And while the movie has it's weak points, I think it's safe to say that Jackson still has the power to entertain on a level that should make just about every other hack director piss his pants in fear.
Ass Kicking in the Underworld
If you haven't seen the first movie, then you are boned - there's no introduction, no "here's what happened before" - it just takes off with Gandalf getting thrown into a pit, and takes off running.
For a three hour movie, the first 90 minutes of it hit the ground running faster than Richard Simmons on crack. We quickly see Frodo and Sam, the two remaining members of the former Fellowship still trying to fulfill their quest: take the One Ring to Mordor and destroy it before the all-evil Sauron can get his grubby mitts on it and use it to bring in a reign of terror worse than the Steve Balmer developers video. Frodo is sliding into e-vile as the Ring gives off its Evil Rays into its brain, and it's former owner Golem is hanging around them, guiding them to Mordor in the hopes that he can be reaquainted with his "Precious" once again.
Meanwhile, the multi-racial League of Heroes - Aragorn the human, Legolas the tree elf (so sexy I've known Geek Girls to take up residences in trees hoping to find their own tree elf), and Ghimli the Comic Relief - wait, I mean Dwarf, long of the axe and the source of most of the movie's humor. (I have the feeling that the Height Challenged segment of the population might have a bone to pick on how Ghimli is the butt of most of the jokes here - about height, short women, height, inability to ride horses, height, burping, and don't forget - height) - are trying to track down Hobbit-napped Merry and Pippin, two small people captured by Orcs to be taken to the evil Sauroman.
And what is Sauroman doing? Well, he's amassing the biggest baddest army to ever exist to kick everybody's ass to make up for all the times he got shoved into a locker in Wizard's School, and that Potter kid got all the credit. With his orcs killing everyone in the nation of Rohan, his aide Wormtongue keeping the Rohan king under evil possession, and using lots of conditioner to keep away split ends from his long, white locks, Sauroman looks like he's going to put him and Sauron on top of the heap.
Before you know it, there's major wars being fought, the return of fallen hero (and let's face it - if anybody hasn't read the books and still doesn't see this coming after all the previews, they should be surprised when I say Gandalf comes back), giant tree-like people called Ents are working their mojo in the forest, and Aragorn is getting the hot looks from not one, but two good looking women - and one's even Elf based. How hot is that?
Geeks Enter Here
The good news is that the pacing is excellent. There was only one moment about 3/5'ths of the way through the movie I found myself looking at my watch (during the long Elf dialogue scenes), but otherwise, it doesn't feel like a three hour movie. You're kept moving right along, no time to get bogged down with all the people and events hurtling by. It's not too fast of a pace either - each scene gets exactly the amount of detail and explanation it needs - no more, no less. This is not a movie where you're told 15 times some crucial piece of information - you should have gotten it the first time, and if you didn't, you'll figure it out on your won later. (Unlike another movie that had to tell you no less than 5 times every 5 minutes about the planetary alignment happening once every 5000 years.)
The movie is still targeted at Geeks themselves - they'll eat up all the details about people and places that most mere mortals will go "huh?" at, like when a character announces "Look, the Mystical Knights of Rayearth have passed by!" (All right, not literally, but you get the idea.) There's lots of names to pass around (and what was up with some of the names? We've got Aragorn, Arwen, Aowen - man, it's surprising that the characters don't get confused and launch into a Who's On First segment sometimes), but you don't have to pay attention to that - most people will get the gist and ignore it, while Geeks will be creaming their pants that Jackson got their favorite detail right.
As far as the acting - it is still as flawless as the original. There's not a scene where anybody feels out of character, or like their just standing around with a sword in their hand waiting to head out to their air-conditioned trailer. Every single actor in the movie - from the main cast down to the stand-in's - plays their role so well, you're convinced this isn't a movie you're watching, but some portal into another history that might have existed. And once again, Ian McKellen proves that he's still the best damn actor out there. His portrayal of Gandalf is spot on - one moment just another old man, full of compassion and slyness, the next second the ass-kicking terror in White. Do not get on this guys bad side, or you'll wind up worse than Mike Tyson's last date.
Look, Mommy - It's Computer Generated!
If there's one major complaint about the movie, it's in the special effects. 80% of the time, they're perfect when used to describe scale. When you first see the Black Gate and realize this fucker is huge, you can't help but just go all Keano Reeves as you breath "Woah!". Or as you look in the twisted forest, perfectly rendered, or the caves beneath the earth, or how our heroes get dirty, bloody, dusty, and generally look like they've been through the ringer.
The main problem with most of the effects is that we know their effects, unlike the last movie where the effects were so subtle, sometimes you didn't realize it was a trick until it was too late. Here, we've got computer generated characters in the form of Golem and the Ents running around the place, or the giant computer generated armies that just don't quite look right. They look good - but there's a level of reality still lacking, some quality that triggers our brain that this isn't real, and dissolves that suspension of disbelief just a little bit.
And sometimes the effects seem to be there just for effects sake - like when Legolas makes the coolest "around the horses neck" mounting of a horse ever, or another scene where Legolas goes down a flight of stairs skateboarding on a shield shooting arrows. Cool? Sure. Necessary? Maybe, maybe not. With all of the conflict going on, you feel that maybe 5 minutes could have been cut out of the movie. Then again, if action's your thing, you might wish for another 5 minutes to watch Aragorn keep up his Superman impression, taking on nearly an entire army of 10,000 orcs on his own with nothing more than a pair of chopsticks and a can of gasoline. Wait, that was from an episode of MacGuyver - my bad.
Then there's the looks of the characters. It's like the old Westerns, where the Bad Guy always wore a black hat. Here, if you're Evil, you're ugly. No good looking baddies here that make women's toes curl - bad guys seem to sprout warts, moles, slime, bad teeth, and a horrible case of gangrene all over their skin. On the other hand, good guys are usually sexy, even if you're a hobbit (I've had enough Geek Girls let me know that Frodo Baggins is close to winning Sexiest Man Under 5 Feet of the Year for the second year running).
Macro and Micro Conflict Systems
What really makes this movie special is more than just the retelling of The Two Towers adapted for the screen. If there's a theme running through the whole movie, it's about Conflict, on the Macro and Micro scale. There's the obvious Macro conflicts - giant armies pitting themselves against the other, the survival of mankind itself at stake. We see up close the effect this war has on people as women and children flee their villages, boys hardly old enough to sprout facial hair being put in armor, handed a sword, and told to go die for their people.
The army scenes are impressive. Once again, Jackson plays the sense of scale beautifully, and when you look out and see 10,000 orcs ready to attack, all you can think is "Damn - the humans are so fucked." Wars are shown to be the confusing, messy and random events that battles become, even if the good guys seem to be able to take out 100 baddies for every goody.
The micro conflicts are the true meat of this movie. Frodo against the corrupting power of the ring. Golem fighting against his own evil nature. This part was probably the best, as we see Smeagel, the man that Golem once was, try to fight his way back to the light. For the first time, Golem becomes more than a slimly froggy bogeyman. He becomes a creature deserving of our pity, proof of what any man will become once the Ring gets its hooks into you far enough.
We see Aragorn and Arowen the Elf deal with their separation, and the realization that only unhappiness may come of their love, since he'll be dead within a century, and she will walk the Earth forever to grieve for her lost love. The conflict of father over his daughter's safety and happiness, or the conflict of a leader uncertain how best to serve his people.
And of all of Jackson's achievements for the movie, it is the micro conflict that is the greatest effect of all. It makes so many of the characters more than just figures on the screen. It gives them humanity, a reason to cheer, to suffer, and to fall right along side them as the events of destiny hold their sway.
Once again, Jackson has created this years best movie - and there's still another 12 months ago before we meet the climatic ending of the trilogy. Personally, I'm already planning on plunking down my $10 to see the next one. After all, it's no longer a bet - it's now a sure thing.
As always, I'm John Hummel. And that's my opinion.
Except that I have seen some places that are making Famicom (and NES) knockoffs - fully compatible with both Japanese and US games. I expect that some other company will make a Super Famicom/Super NES machine shortly. I'm thinking about picking up one of these for my old Final Fantasy/Metal Gear NES cartridges to work in.
One small complaint on his arguments....
on
David Brin On LOTR
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
I like Mr. Brin's writing - most of his books have been pretty good, and Earth is still one of my favorites. But I thoguht this was a little silly:
Naturally, I enjoyed the "Lord of the Rings" (LOTR) trilogy as a kid, during its first big boom in the 1960s. I mean, what was there not to like?
Now, who can tell me the one logical flaw here? Yes, you in the back? That's right - here's a sucker.
I was not even borth in the 1960. I was barely conscious in the 1970s - so I missed out on the whole "culture changing" event of those decades.
So for me, the LoTR movies is partly about telling a story (a rather good one in condensed format), as well as the friendship of watching the movies with those who "get it" (reasons why I'm seeing the movie tonight at 12:01 AM - not because I really want to see the movie that badly, but because I'll hang around with all of my friends and people who "get it").
Now, once all the hoopla is over, and a whole new generation is introduced to the fairy tale and wonder of Tolkien, then I'll have no problem with people looking to make their own things, or people inspired to mix and match the future with Tolkein's view.
I think Mr. Brin is right in some respects - new things are always a good idea, to look at both sides of the equation rather than just lumping "good vs evil" arguments. But I'd hardly call the new movies "backwards looking" - just retelling of a story for those old enough to remember it when it was fresh and new, and for a whole new generation for whom these stories are new to their minds and can experience it with their friends.
Slashdot Mirror
That would be useful - I like to blow away my main drive at times (I'm always installing weird software that eventually crufts things up) - this way I could put /home on a different drive, and / on the main one so I wouldn't have to keep copying things over when I need to replace imovie3 with imovie2 for some weird reason.
I still have my old Duke 3D disk, and this would be a great game to play on my Mac.
I totally agree - the few online games that I've gone back to once every few months (mainly to keep my characters alive until I get more time to play). You can actually do more emotions/interactions with text than canned graphics. People seem to be more polite than graphical games (perhaps because you need more imagination). There's still a lot of good with MUDS - it would be interesting if someone could make a MMRPG with the MUD like ability - might give it more life and abilities.
I used to play online games when they first came out (Quake, Unreal, etc).
But then I discovered that what Dave Barry once said was true:
On the Internet, everybody is only twelve years old.
For a time, I played some good old Capture The Flag Quake - loved that game. But too many "Hey, motherfucker DarkPaladin! You're gay!" when you start doing well, or "Fucking cheat!" when you kill somebody, etc, etc, etc.
I mean - that's just no fun. Most people online are assholes - they live in the games like Everquest, Ultima Online, Unreal Tournament - all of them. If I play games these days, its only with either myself or people that I know.
Sadly, the "average person" is the biggest ruining factor for online gaming. Then again, after watching my teenage nephews play games, it's almost made me want to ban anybody under the "mental" age of 18 from playing games. At least until they learn to RTFM. (That's another subject for another day.)
Isn't that the plot of The Sims?
As a Linux switcher to OS X (and for the folks who are making their Linux apps compilable on OS X - thanks!), I can see the good and bad of this. Right now, my main desktop/laptop are Mac boxes, but I still have another 3 machines in the house still running Windows - my wife's work machine (soon to be retired after we move and she doesn't have to work), my Game box (because Raven Shield probably doesn't run under Wine), and my Linux server for my web server/mail server/etc.
I would love to switch my Linux box to a Mac OS X server box, mainly just to play around with another OS I haven't tried yet, and because I think it will be easier to maintain. For $1000 for an unlimited server licence, I could deal with that. (Yes, I could just go 10 for $500, but I'm evil that way.) The problem is that even finding an old Mac (like a G4 cube) is around $1000 even on Ebay.
The good part about OS X on Intel is that the machines would be damn cheap. I could probably take my current Windows P-800 machine and turn it into a decent - not great, but decent OS X server box. Cheap boxes with a great OS would be the true "Microsoft desktop killer" we've been waiting for. The operating system (OS X) is tried and true now, it's excellent, stable, and kicks Microsoft's ass all over the place.
But the problem in moving to the Intel platform is threefold:
1. Performance. Going from the PPC with all of its registers to Intel's platform will cost some performance - especially if some sort of PPC emulator is used to make all of the old apps run.
2. Drivers. Right now, Apple can ensure that every video card that's qualified to run on a Mac will run, and run without a problem. I've stuck all sorts of hardware into my Mac so far, and it all works flawlessly. Apple will lose that ability.
3. Cheap hardware. Yes, Apple's hardware costs more. And it depreciates a hell of a lot slower than just about any other PCs out there - look at my Cube situation again. These machines are like a rock - they run and run and run. A Compusa employee I once knew mentionted that he hated it when people came into his store and bought a Mac - because he never saw them again, while the Windows guys were in every few months because they "had" to upgrade. So you'll have hardware that won't last as long or as well.
Unless of course, Apple basically brands their own Intel based PCs and ensures that OS X only runs on "certified" machines. Remember - they make money from hardware, not software (though, if OS X became popular and runs on all Intel systems, they could become the next Microsoft in many ways, only with a decent desktop and server system).
I honestly don't believe that it's going to happen. Apple will most likely shift to IBM's new Power970 line - it's the most like the PPC, so no translators/emulators. IBM has a vested interest in making these chips fast and plentiful for their server systems, unlike Motorola which is making PPC chips for - well, pretty much Apple.
Anyway, there's my $0.02. And of course, I could be wrong.
I've only heard two Earthbound rumors so far myself:
1. That there will be a Gameboy Advance re-release of Earthbound 1+2 (the SNES version was 2, the NES version was never officially released in the US, but the ROM version is available if you look hard).
2. There are also rumblings of an Earthbound 3 for the Gamecube. Which would kick ass. We need more insane RPG's that involve you fighting alien posessed lamps.
1. Turn on Formac DV.
2. Plug RCA/Coax/S-Video into Formac DV/TV.
3. Turn on iMovie or BTV.
4. Done.
From there, I can capture movies (and convert to MP4, add effects, etc), or capture screenshots. No muss, no fuss.
I wold agree - if they're not going to be able to include the software manual, the price should be reduced by some degree.
Granted, there's a difference in how much - if the manual is typically a pamplet, then it won't make much difference. But it's an idea.
I do development work (well, or did, but that's another isue), and the Lnux systems use Tomcat with Java 1.4 - mainly because it has the Regular Expressions stuff built in.
I usually develop things on my Mac laptop, then transfer thing over to the official test system. But since I only had Java 1.3, it was harder to develop my stuff for them - I had to have a separate Linux box just for me to use as a mini-server.
Well, I no longer work there and am about to take another job, but at least I an update my system and work on my new web publishing system.
My only fear? That Java 1.5 will be released in a few weeks....
Granted, it was rather short, and it rather thunked you over the head with its message rather than letting the story give it to you - but there were elements that were incredibly well done.
First, the animation itself - a mix of hand-drawn and computer technology in the realm of Lain and Blood: The Last Vampire, only to an even better and more refined degree.
Then there were the images within the artwork. Probably the most disturbing scene in the first Animatrix video shows a women having her clothes torn off by a mob, and that sick feeling filling your gut as a man walks forward and bashes her in the head with a club - only to reveal that she's a robot, and as her all-too human looking breasts spill from her town shirt and her metallic head revealed, your both drawn and repelled by the feeling of how horrible to kill a woman in distress - except she isn't a woman at all. And yet, does that make it any more right?
So far, it's been an interesting lead in to the whole Matrix mythos. I'm downloading the second episode now (90 minutes to go) with high hopes.
I would have thought either Sega (with Steel Battalion, etc), or Tecmo (DOA3, DOA Vollyball). But even looking at Sega's games on the Xbox, they're mostly "experimental" - games that aren't going to draw the big sales (Panzer Dragoon Orta, while a good game, isn't a big ticket seller like the next major Sonic game might be). But Xbox gets Toejam and Earl (crash and burn), Jet Radio Future (decent game, but not a major seller).
Metro3D is a possibility - they've been releasing a rash of Xbox games (and "rash" is the right word - Metal Dungeon (shudder)).
Really? I remember having an Odyssey as a child, and rather enjoyed it. Granted, I was only 5, and my parents didn't get me any other console my entire life, and it wasn't until I was 25 I started buying consoles (and totally fell in love with them....)
But I rather enjoyed the games at the time. Granted, they were pretty much clones of other games (Space Invaders, racing, etc), but I liked it.
So with one hand I hold my phone, and the other I, er, um, "use" the porn - then what hand do I use to drive the car with?
Something I've been looking over for the last little bit, and especially since the last Keynote address (as a recent convert from Linux desktops to OS X desktops early last year).
Apple seems to be straddling the Open Source thing perfectly, using it in a way that should benefit everybody. (Granted, they aren't perfect, but who is?) They're using the power of OS to build their items (such as kHTML in Safari, Darwin for OS X, etc), then putting on a nice wrapper on the front, and contributing their improvements to the core system. Which is just as it should be - they're not trying to break interoperability with an OS item and claim they did it to make it better, but don't submit the changes to the community (like Kerebros and one company we won't mention).
So I'm watching the X11 and Open Office thing with a lot of interest. Keynote, the new application which is really a Powerpoint replacement, uses XML as its native file format - which again is a Good Thing(TM), as it will allow others to tweak, make improvements that both Apple and the rest of the world could use.
I'm wondering how long it will be until Apple starts up with something like iOffice. Oh, I know they have Appleworks - and there hasn't been any new announcement yet. I can see Keynote this year, maybe Keynote 2 in about 18 months with a dual announcement of Counter (an Excel like system) - powered by the work in Open Office, or some other OS project core.
My current calculations show that Linux will overtake Microsoft in about 3-4 years on the server end. With Open Office, just about every business I've talked to recently has been installing the system, and only getting Microsoft Office for 3%-5% of their business (after all - if you don't have to spend the money for 100% of the company, why bother?).
If Apple/Sun/Open Office/other contributors eventually make the Open Office system as good as Excel (and really, it's all about the Macros, ask any accountant) - then what then? Will a business look at the 3%-5% of their business and say "Well, let's just switch them over too?"
With that, MS Office itself will eventually face the same compition that Microsoft Server products are really starting to face now, and within 7-10 years, MS Office may become marginalized.
Now, think of what happens then. You don't need Windows to run Office. You don't need MS Office - Open Office/Star Office/iOffice does the same, and since they all tie into the XML file format, who cares if you decide to put your business on Linux/Sun/Mac? People who want to stay cheap can go to Linux, others can go to Apple and get a good GUI/easier administration with the same ability, but with a higher cost in hardware/software. Because applications are now spread across operating systems, the operating systems themselves become nearly worthless.
I think Steve Jobs/Apple Co know this, and they're putting the chess pieces on the board. Microsoft will always be around - they'll be like Intel. But I honestly believe that 10 years from now, we'll talk about MS just like we did about IBM back in the early 90's. "Oh, yeah - remember when every computer had Windows on it?"
Microsoft makes money from 4 things: Windows client, Windows server, MS Office, Exchange. (There may be others, like their hardware, but overall, all their other huge investments (Xbox, MSN, handheld, etc) are losing money, boyed by the 85% market we pay for Windows/MS Office). If Windows Server and Microsoft Office become marginalized or have true competition they can't buy out/bully out, how long until the other two become insignificate as well - or until Microsoft truly starts making Office/Exchange for other platforms not as a token "Look, we're not a monopoly", but because they must.
Competition. I believe about 10 years - a long time it may seem, but it feels about right. And Apple is making the right moves to be right there when it happens.
I don't mean to sound like a fanboy - I really don't. I have an Xbox, and technically, it's all good.
;) ), but that's about it.
But it's the games for me. I like RPG's - and other than Morrowind (which I play on my PC), and Fable (when it comes out), I don't see anything else I really want. I'm not into sports games at all, and most FPS on the consoles don't hook as well as the PC/Mac based ones do.
My Xbox list:
Halo
Fatal Frame (Xbox version)
Silent Hill 2 (Xbox version)
Splinter Cell
Probably some others (I might buy Mechassault, but I'd rather have Steel Battalion
My PS2 and Gamecube list is much greater - again, nothing about the technology, just about the games (Monkey Ball 2, Resident Evil Zero, Xenosaga, Star Ocean III, Suikoden III, etc) that I enjoy.
I do see your point - some of my items are in the Xbox now. I think they're good things - some things I'd like the PS3 to have. And there are things I'd like the Xbox to have (CDDB for the ripped files, USB/Firewire connections so I can plug in a keyboard/mouse, etc).
No system is perfect, so I like to see things better for them all. But for me - I just like the games.
My rule:
Xbox has the best looking games.
PS2 has the most games.
Gamecube has the best games.
Just my $0.02.
Are you talking about graphics difference as far as:
PS2 > PSOne(on PS2)
Or:
PSOne(on PSOne) > PSOne(on PS2)
If you talking about the former - I agree, there is a graphics difference - but for some of my favorite games (Final Fantasy VII, Lunar, etc), I don't give a crap.
If you're talking the latter, then I haven't seen that myself.
But graphics aren't always the deal. Look at the original Final Fantasy VI (III US), Super Mario Brothers, or the original Pac-Man. Simple graphics (sprite based, granted), but still great. Or Panzer Dragoon Saga - by todays standards, awful graphics (even the movie sequences look dated), but still a great game.
While having super fast graphics/processors/etc is a very good thing (after all, it has to last at least 5 years before the PS4 comes out ;) ), here's my own wish list for the PS3:
1. Backwards compatible with the PSOne and PS2. Plenty of great games for those systems still out there, and I still like to play them.
2. Hard drive. This will be needed for the online games (which I don't care about) and add-ons (which I do). While there are games like RPG Maker 2 coming out which use the memory card, I'm more interested in seeing a PC like mod-community surround the PS3 - something we don't have now.
That, and I just don't like memory cards. I must have 20 PSOne memory cards (and most of those backed up to the PC through some third party units). I'd like to be able to swap save games with my friends just by connecting to them online.
3. Built in Ethernet/Modem: I'm assuming that come 2005 we'll still mostly be connecting via 56K modems in some areas, so let's assume that's going to be the case. I don't need a "$10 a month for a central line" - I don't play online that often, and I'd rather just have a few good friends who aren't assholes connect to my PS3 over the 'Net to play.
4. With the Ethernet/Modem, I want a CDDB system for my CD's to store them on the HDD.
5. And, of course, I want a Linux disk to be orderable with the system - just for those of us who like to tinker.
There have been rumors for a little while (see Gamers.com for examples), but nothing concrete until this moment, and Nintendo was in "denial" mode. (This is where they deny all rumors for 4 months, then come out with a press release validating all the rumors - standard for most of the game industry.)
The Good:
"Backlit" screen - it's really more like the Afterburner, but probably of a higher/clearer quality (without the "blue tint" the Afterburner sometimes gives - not trying to knock the Afterburner, it's a great hack).
Long battery life - 10 hour with light on, 18 with light off.
Clamshell - as someone who games "on the go" and with a 9 month old son who likes to eat Daddy's GBA, this is a good thing.
The Bad:
Rechargeable batteries - would be nice if we could put AA as a "backup" or something. But Nintendo was against a rock and a hard place - if they allow any third party rechargeable batteries to be put in, there could be compatibility issues (really a non-issue except from a legal "we won't support it if it breaks" kind of thing - kind of like some MP3 players that have their own brand of AA rechargeables).
Form factor: Hm. I'm not sure on how comfortable this will be. Once nice thing about the GBA is while it's a little too small for my 1.5 octave spanning hands, the shape is more forgiving. Here, we have...a square shape. Looking at it, I'm not sold on "long hours with Metroid Fusion without finger cramping". We'll see.
Otherwise, for $90 ($100 after taxes, etc), it looks like a nice evolution for the GBA. Remember your history - Nintendo made several changes to the original GameBoy over it's 10 year life (colors, slimmer, one backlit system, color screen), and Nintendo still has around 50% of the software console market sales locked down (at least when you include that nice sized 35%-40% hold the Gameboy/Gameboy Advance has).
I don't think a video iPod would be a bad thing - personally, I'd like a Palm style PDA with the 5 to 20 G drive inside - that way, I can store all my ebooks (yes, 16 MB has now become too small - thanks, Tolkein and Rowling!), documents, etc.
But for video - something to watch sitting at the couch ("What's that dear? You want me to sit on the couch and watch Pride and Prejudice with you again? Well, that's fine - I'll put Utena on the handheld."). Here's what I'd like to see:
1. A decent DVD ripper. Theoretically, if Apple made it so it only ripped the video to the handheld, they might - just might - avoid the legal entanglements. I know - I'm smoking crack just thinking about it, but this is a wish list. I'd like to stick a DVD into a tray in my Powermac, have it ripped to a 1 to 2 G MP4 file (including subtitles/optional languages taken care of - yes, I'm an anime geek fan, who asked you), then placed on the portable.
2. 802.11/Bluetooth support - yes, that would make copying a 1 G file a long time - but if we're assuming this also does MP3's as well, then I'm just putting the unit in the same room and synching up. Or "streaming" video/music from somewhere else. (Could be used as part of Apple's Digital Hub theory.)
Without turning this into a full fledged PDA, I can't think of what else I'd really like to see. (Well, unless you really want to make me a Gameboy Advance with a 1 G hard drive to cache ROM images of all my games so I don't have to swap cartidges - wait, there's that crack pipe again, my bad.)
This is the main reason why I haven't upgraded my PowerMac yet (and I'm sure Doom III will be out for it...) and the biggest reason why I'm a console guy these days (having converted back with the PSOne hit $99 and I was suckered into playing Final Fantasy VII).
;.)
I'm still working on a backlog of games - Alice, Suikoden III, Halo, Metroid Prime, No One Lives Forever 2 (on my PC - the only thing it runs is games these days), and I'm just not as "upgrade conscious" as I was the time I bought a new computer because it didn't run Wing Commander III. (And with games like Ultima VII and the like becoming Open Source projects, I've got an ever bigger backlog
Personal Note
I'm not big into spelling characters names, so if I've misspelled Ghimli or Aragorn or WhoFrigginGivesACrap, please forgive me for not rushing home to open the books and get every letter in the right spot - if you know the stories, you'll know whom I'm talking about.
Get Your Elf Ears On
About a year ago, I made a bet with New Line Cinema. I put up $10, scheduled my time to see the midnight showing of The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring with a bunch of geeks. I mean, we're talking the kind of folk who make their own chain mail, call each other pussies if they haven't read the entire Lord of the Rings trilogy once a year and can't talk Elvish, and girls that are hot. Look, I'm sorry to sound sexist, but geek girls are hot. (Trust me - the smarter the girl, the better they shag.)
I basically bet New Line Cinema they couldn't do it. They couldn't translate Tolkein's epic work into a movie format - even at over 2 hours long. There was too much, the actors would surely suck, and the only reason to go to the midnight showing was to poke fun at the geeks who showed up in their cadaver wax Elf Ears.
Well, the joke was on me. The Fellowship of the Rings turned out to be the True Shit - the kind of movie most Hollywood types can only dream of making. A movie that is, as near as I can figure, perfect: perfect acting, great timing of the plot, special effects that are so subtle you sometimes don't realize they're there, and an attention to detail that would make a compulsive counting accountant weep in envy.
But one year later - could Jackson and his team do it again? The Fellowship turns from the story of a small band of would-be heroes (and the fodder for just about every role playing/fantasy epic that ever existed), into the gigantic tale of war, treachery, and conflict - both great and small.
And while the movie has it's weak points, I think it's safe to say that Jackson still has the power to entertain on a level that should make just about every other hack director piss his pants in fear.
Ass Kicking in the Underworld
If you haven't seen the first movie, then you are boned - there's no introduction, no "here's what happened before" - it just takes off with Gandalf getting thrown into a pit, and takes off running.
For a three hour movie, the first 90 minutes of it hit the ground running faster than Richard Simmons on crack. We quickly see Frodo and Sam, the two remaining members of the former Fellowship still trying to fulfill their quest: take the One Ring to Mordor and destroy it before the all-evil Sauron can get his grubby mitts on it and use it to bring in a reign of terror worse than the Steve Balmer developers video. Frodo is sliding into e-vile as the Ring gives off its Evil Rays into its brain, and it's former owner Golem is hanging around them, guiding them to Mordor in the hopes that he can be reaquainted with his "Precious" once again.
Meanwhile, the multi-racial League of Heroes - Aragorn the human, Legolas the tree elf (so sexy I've known Geek Girls to take up residences in trees hoping to find their own tree elf), and Ghimli the Comic Relief - wait, I mean Dwarf, long of the axe and the source of most of the movie's humor. (I have the feeling that the Height Challenged segment of the population might have a bone to pick on how Ghimli is the butt of most of the jokes here - about height, short women, height, inability to ride horses, height, burping, and don't forget - height) - are trying to track down Hobbit-napped Merry and Pippin, two small people captured by Orcs to be taken to the evil Sauroman.
And what is Sauroman doing? Well, he's amassing the biggest baddest army to ever exist to kick everybody's ass to make up for all the times he got shoved into a locker in Wizard's School, and that Potter kid got all the credit. With his orcs killing everyone in the nation of Rohan, his aide Wormtongue keeping the Rohan king under evil possession, and using lots of conditioner to keep away split ends from his long, white locks, Sauroman looks like he's going to put him and Sauron on top of the heap.
Before you know it, there's major wars being fought, the return of fallen hero (and let's face it - if anybody hasn't read the books and still doesn't see this coming after all the previews, they should be surprised when I say Gandalf comes back), giant tree-like people called Ents are working their mojo in the forest, and Aragorn is getting the hot looks from not one, but two good looking women - and one's even Elf based. How hot is that?
Geeks Enter Here
The good news is that the pacing is excellent. There was only one moment about 3/5'ths of the way through the movie I found myself looking at my watch (during the long Elf dialogue scenes), but otherwise, it doesn't feel like a three hour movie. You're kept moving right along, no time to get bogged down with all the people and events hurtling by. It's not too fast of a pace either - each scene gets exactly the amount of detail and explanation it needs - no more, no less. This is not a movie where you're told 15 times some crucial piece of information - you should have gotten it the first time, and if you didn't, you'll figure it out on your won later. (Unlike another movie that had to tell you no less than 5 times every 5 minutes about the planetary alignment happening once every 5000 years.)
The movie is still targeted at Geeks themselves - they'll eat up all the details about people and places that most mere mortals will go "huh?" at, like when a character announces "Look, the Mystical Knights of Rayearth have passed by!" (All right, not literally, but you get the idea.) There's lots of names to pass around (and what was up with some of the names? We've got Aragorn, Arwen, Aowen - man, it's surprising that the characters don't get confused and launch into a Who's On First segment sometimes), but you don't have to pay attention to that - most people will get the gist and ignore it, while Geeks will be creaming their pants that Jackson got their favorite detail right.
As far as the acting - it is still as flawless as the original. There's not a scene where anybody feels out of character, or like their just standing around with a sword in their hand waiting to head out to their air-conditioned trailer. Every single actor in the movie - from the main cast down to the stand-in's - plays their role so well, you're convinced this isn't a movie you're watching, but some portal into another history that might have existed. And once again, Ian McKellen proves that he's still the best damn actor out there. His portrayal of Gandalf is spot on - one moment just another old man, full of compassion and slyness, the next second the ass-kicking terror in White. Do not get on this guys bad side, or you'll wind up worse than Mike Tyson's last date.
Look, Mommy - It's Computer Generated!
If there's one major complaint about the movie, it's in the special effects. 80% of the time, they're perfect when used to describe scale. When you first see the Black Gate and realize this fucker is huge, you can't help but just go all Keano Reeves as you breath "Woah!". Or as you look in the twisted forest, perfectly rendered, or the caves beneath the earth, or how our heroes get dirty, bloody, dusty, and generally look like they've been through the ringer.
The main problem with most of the effects is that we know their effects, unlike the last movie where the effects were so subtle, sometimes you didn't realize it was a trick until it was too late. Here, we've got computer generated characters in the form of Golem and the Ents running around the place, or the giant computer generated armies that just don't quite look right. They look good - but there's a level of reality still lacking, some quality that triggers our brain that this isn't real, and dissolves that suspension of disbelief just a little bit.
And sometimes the effects seem to be there just for effects sake - like when Legolas makes the coolest "around the horses neck" mounting of a horse ever, or another scene where Legolas goes down a flight of stairs skateboarding on a shield shooting arrows. Cool? Sure. Necessary? Maybe, maybe not. With all of the conflict going on, you feel that maybe 5 minutes could have been cut out of the movie. Then again, if action's your thing, you might wish for another 5 minutes to watch Aragorn keep up his Superman impression, taking on nearly an entire army of 10,000 orcs on his own with nothing more than a pair of chopsticks and a can of gasoline. Wait, that was from an episode of MacGuyver - my bad.
Then there's the looks of the characters. It's like the old Westerns, where the Bad Guy always wore a black hat. Here, if you're Evil, you're ugly. No good looking baddies here that make women's toes curl - bad guys seem to sprout warts, moles, slime, bad teeth, and a horrible case of gangrene all over their skin. On the other hand, good guys are usually sexy, even if you're a hobbit (I've had enough Geek Girls let me know that Frodo Baggins is close to winning Sexiest Man Under 5 Feet of the Year for the second year running).
Macro and Micro Conflict Systems
What really makes this movie special is more than just the retelling of The Two Towers adapted for the screen. If there's a theme running through the whole movie, it's about Conflict, on the Macro and Micro scale. There's the obvious Macro conflicts - giant armies pitting themselves against the other, the survival of mankind itself at stake. We see up close the effect this war has on people as women and children flee their villages, boys hardly old enough to sprout facial hair being put in armor, handed a sword, and told to go die for their people.
The army scenes are impressive. Once again, Jackson plays the sense of scale beautifully, and when you look out and see 10,000 orcs ready to attack, all you can think is "Damn - the humans are so fucked." Wars are shown to be the confusing, messy and random events that battles become, even if the good guys seem to be able to take out 100 baddies for every goody.
The micro conflicts are the true meat of this movie. Frodo against the corrupting power of the ring. Golem fighting against his own evil nature. This part was probably the best, as we see Smeagel, the man that Golem once was, try to fight his way back to the light. For the first time, Golem becomes more than a slimly froggy bogeyman. He becomes a creature deserving of our pity, proof of what any man will become once the Ring gets its hooks into you far enough.
We see Aragorn and Arowen the Elf deal with their separation, and the realization that only unhappiness may come of their love, since he'll be dead within a century, and she will walk the Earth forever to grieve for her lost love. The conflict of father over his daughter's safety and happiness, or the conflict of a leader uncertain how best to serve his people.
And of all of Jackson's achievements for the movie, it is the micro conflict that is the greatest effect of all. It makes so many of the characters more than just figures on the screen. It gives them humanity, a reason to cheer, to suffer, and to fall right along side them as the events of destiny hold their sway.
Once again, Jackson has created this years best movie - and there's still another 12 months ago before we meet the climatic ending of the trilogy. Personally, I'm already planning on plunking down my $10 to see the next one. After all, it's no longer a bet - it's now a sure thing.
As always, I'm John Hummel. And that's my opinion.
Except that I have seen some places that are making Famicom (and NES) knockoffs - fully compatible with both Japanese and US games. I expect that some other company will make a Super Famicom/Super NES machine shortly. I'm thinking about picking up one of these for my old Final Fantasy/Metal Gear NES cartridges to work in.
Now, who can tell me the one logical flaw here? Yes, you in the back? That's right - here's a sucker.
I was not even borth in the 1960. I was barely conscious in the 1970s - so I missed out on the whole "culture changing" event of those decades.
So for me, the LoTR movies is partly about telling a story (a rather good one in condensed format), as well as the friendship of watching the movies with those who "get it" (reasons why I'm seeing the movie tonight at 12:01 AM - not because I really want to see the movie that badly, but because I'll hang around with all of my friends and people who "get it").
Now, once all the hoopla is over, and a whole new generation is introduced to the fairy tale and wonder of Tolkien, then I'll have no problem with people looking to make their own things, or people inspired to mix and match the future with Tolkein's view.
I think Mr. Brin is right in some respects - new things are always a good idea, to look at both sides of the equation rather than just lumping "good vs evil" arguments. But I'd hardly call the new movies "backwards looking" - just retelling of a story for those old enough to remember it when it was fresh and new, and for a whole new generation for whom these stories are new to their minds and can experience it with their friends.
Like me.