grenideer – Page 6 – why i hate everything

The Walking Dead

This article is about the 2012 videogame. For other uses, see The Walking Dead (disambiguation).

The Walking Dead is a funny title. On one hand, I didn’t expect much. It was created by little known episodic game developer Telltale and is based on a flavor of the month property with quick time event-y gameplay. At the same time, the game has a cool art style, is focused more on dialog than action, and has a good story and excellent voice-acting. So where do all these dominoes fall?

Let’s start with the most significant effort put into this game. The Walking Dead emulates a tv show and pulls off its 5 individual episodes nicely. The story is well-paced and contains a bunch of characters, all with their individual quirks and annoyances. The emotional beats are well complemented with driving, sad music, and the world feels believable and tragic because of it. These qualities alone make the game a success, and all the awards and financial gains are, I believe, well deserved. Doing something fresh in this industry is a big deal, and even Valve couldn’t pull off the episodic thing.

However, there is a decent counter-point to all these praises. The story, while well scripted and much better than most videogames, is basically just a rehash of The Road. A grown man watches over a little kid in a post apocalyptic world, they run into bandits, they run into cannibals, and as sick as the man gets his entire goal is to protect the one innocent thing around him. There are more parallels but you get the idea. If this was a movie it would receive the same criticism more publically, but in general people are plenty happy with the mature subject matter because ‘this is just a videogame.’ So while I don’t think The Walking Dead is setting back games as a medium, it is still just playing catch-up to cinema instead of doing something truly unique.

There are other small problems, and since it’s easier to fill a page with negativity than praise, I’ll take a couple more paragraphs to explain. The characters aren’t quite as consistent as I would like. The ‘best friend’ is heroic at first, then turns cowardly and useless, then turns heroic again. The conversations are often disjointed and there were times when a reference to a previous event was said in a generic fashion as if to avoid the trouble of recording separate lines to reflect what specifically happened. And while it should be obvious that this is a game for those interested mainly in story, the gameplay and controls of some sections are certainly lacking. This is not a deal-breaker and is to some extent excusable for this type of game, but Telltale could’ve done a better job.

This game series adapts to the choices you make. The story is tailored by how you play.

But with all the nitpicks about The Walking Dead, the ultimate criticism must come down to the meaning of choice. In a tight narrative, story branches are a big problem. Often the illusion of choice is better than actual game changing events. But if the player sees behind the curtain- if it is obvious that pressing X or A or B all end with the same result- then the idea of interactive fictions breaks down. Early portions of the game had moments where one character or another could die but the end game still played out the same. I would’ve hoped that, with all the reminders about how the game "adapts to my choices", that I could’ve created more diversity with my inputs.

All of that said, in the end The Walking Dead is a great thing for this industry. It’s a surprise hit that feels very different even from other quick-time games like Heavy Rain. It is supposed to give you the experience of ‘playing a tv show’ and the amount of time and thought commitment nail it. There’s some dark humor, there’s some tragedy, and there’s a whole lot of entertainment.

The Road

I mostly wrote the draft of this post in 2008, when I first read the book. In trying to reference it in a recent post, I realized I never published it, so here it is with minimal clean up.

This is a great book, mostly because of the fact that it is casual reading for the cultured. It is one event leading to the next in a simple train of thought style but it works well for the subject matter. Meaning from moment to moment is not something Cormac McCarthy presses, evidenced by his other famous work No Country for Old Men. The Road is likewise violent, tragic, miserable, but next to all that is the beauty in caring and protecting a child. The novel is direct yet introverted, deep and shallow at the same time.

The writing style is composed in a way that would have made you flunk 7th grade English, but I love it. The disregard for syntax creates a dirtiness about the story that belongs in the world. It is as if no more educated people remain to properly document the sad struggle. While film directors use many camera techniques like desaturation and jumpy movement to convey form on the function, so too do McCarthy’s words frame the atmosphere of the dying world.

The Road is not a long read. I got through it in less than 6 hours. The movie, if you’ve seen it, does an excellent job capturing most of the scenes and desperation, and if that’s your sort of thing, you should read the real thing.

Leftovers

Maybe I’m an old man, but I caught myself thinking deeply about leftovers today. I remember my mom always pushing leftovers on us kids and the strange joy she would get when we obliged the meal. I can totally understand that now.

I’ve eaten more than my fair share of Taco Bell and Arby’s. I am not ashamed to concede that I need a regular Mexican Pizza or Mozzarella Sticks fix from these fine vendors. But it is enormously satisfying to be able to cook a good, large meal and pack containers of leftovers in to the fridge. It’s just good sense- money well spent on home cooked food and another meal in waiting to boot.

But if there’s one thing more pleasurable than packing up a refrigerator with delicious leftovers, it’s the immense satisfaction I get when I actually eat that food and get to throw the empty leftover containers into the sink. I don’t know what it is. It’s like a beautiful virtuous cycle of culinary habits. And if that makes me an old man then I will wear that badge with pride while I continue deciding on what window shades to buy.

Django Unchained

Django Unchained is poetic justice on steroids. This isn’t unexpected from Quentin Tarantino, whose last movie featured American soldiers shooting Hitler in the face with a machine gun and Jews burning down a theater full of Nazis. Here, an ex-slave literally whipping a slave owner and killing a plantation’s worth of rednecks fits nicely.

The usual Tarantino staples make appearances. The gore is overt and even comedic at times. The cinematography begins with a bit of 70s direction (thankfully the exaggerated camera zooms become more scarce past the first 10 minutes). The anachronistic music worked wonderfully, with the tough persona of rap music juxtaposing against a line of submitted slaves and the modernized bluegrass filling in where appropriate. There almost hints to be a torture scene that we thankfully did not need to endure. And for good measure, a couple throwback actors like Don Johnson get small roles.

For a 3 hour affair, the pacing keeps the movie fun and surprisingly quick. The film jumps between action and plot smoothly and is never long between jokes. The dialog in the film is well scripted but I do feel that it falls short of Tarantino greatness. There are usually iconic scenes in his films, just before a conflict gets physical, where the audience can feel the nervous tension building to insufferable levels. It’s not that Django Unchained doesn’t have these moments- DiCaprio’s speech about skull phrenology comes closest- but there is a bit less focus on character monologue.

Aside from Tarantino’s continuing insistence to play a role in his films, the casting was great. Christoph Waltz is no doubt the heart of the movie but without Leonardo DiCaprio’s debonair southern charm in the role of the villain, I doubt much about the conflict would have been memorable. The German Dr. Schulz’s stilted inflection contrasted plantation owner Calvin Candie’s smooth charisma for one of the great rivalries of the year. Jamie Foxx played the badass as he can, starting slow before building into a more rounded character. Even Samuel L. Jackson gives his best performance which is certainly not always the case. I thought it was amusing that Walter Goggins, famous for roles like Shane Vendrell in The Shield and Boyd Crowder in Justified, gets typecast as a white supremacist good ol’ boy once again, but he does fit the role well.

If I had one gripe about Django Unchained, it’s that the gunplay is unimaginative. Sure, seeing splashes of blood spray off bodies for every bullet is fun but it is a one trick affair. Better choreography was sorely needed here, and it seems to me that a lot of the shooting at the end of the film was edited out to avoid this very banality.

Nothing stops Django Unchained from having a whole lot of fun with a touchy subject, however, and that’s the niche Quentin Tarantino is building himself now. It’s a great fit for his homage-laden personality and vintage cinematic knowledge. At a time when it’s so hard to shock movie audiences, stepping away from that solitary goal and just letting loose and pushing purposefully over-the-top feels just fine to me.

Who Stole the American Dream?

Who Stole the American Dream? – Hedrick Smith, 2012

I don’t much like politics. Dems are Big Government and Repubs are Big Business and we could all do with a little less of both. But with as polarizing as election time always is, it is natural for some curiosity to rub off, and as I unfortunately found myself listening to NPR one day and hearing about this book, I bit. Right off the bat I will say that this is a pro-Democrat book, with perhaps a moderate instead of a liberal slant.

Who Stole the American Dream? really resonates with me because it touches on all the creeping doubts I had with the modern establishment but could never intellectually voice. Corporate power and the use of stock price as a measuring stick of success, the influence of Wall Street in political power, the overpay of CEOs and the richest 1%- these are all problems that feel evil to the everyman and spawned the entire Occupy Wall Street movement. If you’ve ever found yourself at odds with any of these agendas then I’d recommend reading this book as it goes into detail with why these are bad trends and what changes in history led to this status quo.

"Two trends are primarily responsible for today’s hyperconcentration of wealth in America- the collective decisions over time by America’s corporate power elite to take a far bigger share of business earnings for themselves, and the increasingly pro-rich, pro-business policy tilt in Washington since the late 1970s."

At its core, Who Stole the American Dream? is simply a comparison between the success of the middle class in the 50s, 60, and 70s, compared to the turnaround in the 80s, 90s, and 00s. The middle class was strong and felt well represented in politics during multiple civil rights movements. In time, the balance of power shifted away from the individual and to the corporations who are less regulated than ever before. Tax advantages for the rich have improved dramatically over this time period. The author asserts that a series of greedy policy changes have led this country into the current depression and caused a Middle Class Squeeze, an enormous loss of wealth for the 80%.

"Exhibit number one showing that there is no direct link between low taxes and high growth was America’s dismal economic record following the massive tax cuts enacted under George W. Bush in 2001, 2002, and 2003."

The book attempts to present its facts in a mostly non-partisan format but at times does pick on Republicans a bit. Perhaps that is merely pointing out the problem as the party has been very pro-business of late. Combined with the fact that the opening prologue is very preachy and full of rhetoric, I could see it rubbing some people the wrong way. Also, this is a long book and some of the chapters nearer the end feel like excess bloat. A better editor with a smarter outline format would’ve done wonders with this publication. However, these faults aside, the real meat of the matter lies through the 10%-60% marks of the book and this should be enough to enlighten and enrage most casual readers.

"Our nation’s system of retirement security is imperiled, headed for a serious train wreck."

As to issues that I either disagree with or otherwise do not see eye to eye on, the author puts his full support behind unions and pensions. I am not one to think that unions need to be forced on workers or that 401ks are worse than pensions but I do admit to some pause after being more educated on the topics. Much of the anti-401k talk references older mismanaged plans and in this day and age one should never think of old fashioned pensions as a sure thing anyway. Still, the point is well taken that over the last 50 years employers have found ways to remove themselves from retirement responsibility, and while we may question where this responsibility should lie, it is nevertheless another benefit that has been lost to the middle class.

"The growth of these pyramiding bank loans and derivatives followed the policy prescriptions of Fed chairman Alan Greenspan, who credited this process with diversifying risk and having "contributed to the stability of the banking system….""

I don’t hold as much sympathy for ‘swindled home owners’ as most liberals do. Taking money from your own equity sounds like a bad idea upon immediate consideration and there needs to be some accountability of the home owners. They were, after all, written checks that they spent elsewhere. But again I welcomed the differing viewpoint, explained so strongly and convincingly that I have softened my stance. It is admittedly hard to make the correct decisions when the majority of financial experts and banking institutions are acting greedily, and the sheer amount of fraud that was happening opened my eyes. If you want a detailed narrative of the housing bubble, look no further.

"In this era of globalization, the interests of companies and countries have diverged."

As far as new causes to champion, this quote hits the nail on the head. Free Market is the wrong phrase- the focus needs to be the Free American Market. In a truly global free market, it makes complete sense to screw the American economy over to build gains, even for American companies. Our government isn’t set up to promote truly free and blindly equal capitalism, it is set up to protect our country. Sometimes that means forcing corporations to ‘stay home’ and treat Americans fairly even when technically not in their best personal interests. I don’t advocate unfair practices and taking advantage of other countries, and today’s world would better police itself against this, but I do think we should give tax breaks to the companies that are helping our economy as opposed to those helping build China.

"Powerlessness breeds cynicism and passivism, especially between elections, which is the crucial time when policies are forged, the time when the organized money of special interests exerts commanding influence."

Overall, Who Stole the American Dream? is a call to arms, a cry to make your voice heard. It is a narrative that is meant to outrage the middle class and is backed by many factual examples and citations with a healthy does of rhetoric and zeal. The book ends with several points to a solution but there aren’t any easy answers here. The power of the business lobby dwarfs anything else in Washington and that isn’t likely to change soon. But the knowledge of the countless problems provide some comfort, and if you were inclined to try and do something about them, this book would be a good launching point.

The Fonda Theatre

At long last I get to cross ‘seeing The Afghan Whigs live’ off my bucket list. They played two nights at the Fonda Theatre, formerly Music Box, formerly the Henry Fonda Theatre, formerly a bunch of other names but originally (and again) Music Box.

Venue:

6126 Hollywood Blvd. Hollywood, CA 90028

This is a great location in the heart of Hollywood, just a short block from the Hollywood & Vine Metro station. If you don’t take the train, however, you’ll need to look for parking and you’ll probably end up paying in the connected lot. There’s an upstairs floor with seating and a bar as well as an large outside roof patio but all of this is secondary to what really matters – the main floor. Again a large bar and some limited seats sit against the back wall before a step down into the large, flat, open General Admission area. The old 1920’s theater vibe is present from the decorative ceiling, pillars, and old curtains.

Show:

As previously mentioned, the theater just went through a stint as the Music Box where the large area in front of the stage often acted as a club dance floor. This means there is plenty of space and the sound is great. The acoustics of the old fashioned theater are appreciated and it’s easy to see the show no matter where you stand. The Afghan Whigs kept the light show simple but the equipment was modern and well done. I have to say that I’ve seen countless shows at this venue and have never been disappointed.

Drinking:

The drinks in plastic cups are more or less what you’d expect but it is worth pointing out that there are enough bars in here to keep you from waiting in any noticeable lines. And of course, this being Hollywood, danger dogs will be served on the sidewalk just outside. But the real gem is the attached bar, Blue Palms Brewhouse. This is one of the best places to discover and drink craft beers in LA. They have a large rotating selection of 20+ drafts, including a few of their own, and have a bunch of appetizers, burgers, and entrees that go great with beer. The only thing I can fault them for is being a little too packed and leaning a bit too heavily on the IPA crutch. Sometimes the door between the bar and the theater lobby is open as well, allowing easy access. What more could you want?

The Fiscal Cliff

Hate to break it to those all up in arms about this whole budget crisis… The Fiscal Cliff is not the end of the world (nor did the Mayans predict it). It’s an emergency measure that will force spending cuts (good) while letting the tax breaks expire (also good). I’m aware that the post-Thelma-and-Louise conditions suggest another recession but that is only if a budget doesn’t get worked out for another year. A month or two off the cliff is not a worry. Wall Street will freak out for a couple days, but that’s to be expected.

I’d frankly be surprised if the budget gets resolved before the end of the year. Congress is just doing a lot of posturing and the media outlets are just playing up the drama, as usual.

By the way, when did I get so political? I refuse to admit it, it’s just that I read a book about this whole mess and I think about it more than I should. The whole point of this post is that I just shouldn’t bother with it.

Homeland

By all accounts I didn’t think I would like Homeland. A POW returning home is deemed a war hero by everyone except one crazy CIA agent who suspects he’s a terrorist. Shows entirely set around such a delicate premise usually cannot sustain a drama like this, especially on American television where this thing will be into season 5 before you know it. As is too often in television story arcs, success breeds failure and the inevitable jumping of the shark as the producer’s try to squeeze every last penny out of the IP that they can.

But Homeland is a bit of an oddity. A friend of mine is catching up on the first season and reminded me how slow it was. Indeed, I remember not really being into the story and I may have even quit watching the show if my now-fiancé didn’t like it so much. Thinking about it, there are many things to be annoyed at by that season: the plot developments that prolong the mystery, the fact that the entire CIA is inept except for the heroine, even the pretentious jazzy episode intro sequence.

But somewhere along the way the hooks sunk in. Carrie with her mania, Brody with his stalwart sense of duty, Saul with his fatherly guidance- these were strong characters that were easy to invest in. And even though the season finale didn’t come to a fully satisfying conclusion, and even though I didn’t believe season 2 could do anything remotely believable, I was left wanting more.

Queue one year and several television awards later and season 2 was set up for spectacular failure. But I was surprised. A few episodes in, a bombshell drops that I thought the writers would’ve waited for the season finale for. A couple more episodes, another bomb. For Homeland, success made the writers really dig deep and make sure that the plot wasn’t just a series of events to prolong the inevitable conclusion. The story was winding and twisting and still mostly believable. I’d even go so far as to say, despite being a high concept show that plays out most of its mystery in year 1, that the second was the much better season.

By the recent season 2 finale, the writers found a great way to essentially reset the series. Next season can be anything the producers want while most of the storylines thus far have been tied up to satisfaction. It is something rare in American television- actual closure, tangible progress. Instead of lazily continuing within the comfortable confines established 2 years ago, Homeland is forcing itself to evolve into something exciting and different. Can’t wait for the next go.

Santa Barbara Bowl

I just caught a great double show. Jane’s Addiction is on tour for their new album and I decided to see them off the beaten path and go to the Santa Barbara Bowl. What’s more, The Airborne Toxic Event opened for them.

Venue:

1122 North Milpas Street, Santa Barbara, CA 93103

Just on the edge of walkable from Santa Barbara’s State Street, up into the hills, is the pleasant outdoor bowl. The venue is much smaller than similar sites (like the Hollywood Bowl) but the intimacy is appreciated. Southern California lends a hand in the ambiance- the coastal air and cool breeze kept the temperature perfect. There are more seats compared to most normal concerts but there is still a party at the bottom if you so choose. Up top, the wooden bleacher-style seats are spacious.

Show:

Most outdoor venues have an acoustical challenge to deal with and may suffer some sound quality loss as a trade-off. The Santa Barbara Bowl does a valiant job and I thought both bands sounded great. The stage is big and offers a lot of space for lights, props, and performers. It is important to keep in mind that, while this is small for a bowl, outdoor venues tend to be much bigger than traditional theaters so you do tend to get more of a bird’s eye view of things.

Drinking:

Is there anything better than drinking wine from plastic cups at outdoor bowl concerts? Santa Barbara, known for great wines, delivered. Unlike Hollywood Bowl, you can’t bring in your own bottles and I’m not even sure if you can bring in your own food. The concession stands have a pretty broad selection of snacks and entrees, though.