Josh's Inner Dorkdom Journal - Episode 10

1. HD for last-gen games?
Go on and do yourself a favor and download a Playstation 2 emulator. I've recently been replaying Final Fantasy XII and I can honestly say that one of the low points of the series (in my opinion) is now a more pleasurable experience because of PCXE2. The once (again, in my opinion) horrid graphics of one of the last major PS2 titles are much more palatable at a higher resolution, due mainly to the various plugins available for the emulator.

I'm not condoning the use of a pirated copy of FFXII, as PCXE2 will play titles directly off of the original game DVD. So if you have some old PS2 games (and a powerful enough PC rig) and you want to see what those games look like in HD quality, download the emulator and give it a look. You won't be disappointed.

2. Selling your soul to the devil... all for a videogame.
In my last post, I talked about the fact that I would probably be reviewing Final Fantasy XIV: A Realm Reborn. To someone like Nic, this may come as something of a shock since I've been staunchly against paying a monthly fee for a game.

My opinions on charging players to play a game is a whole other story for a whole other article.

But I figured... what the heck? (censored Back To The Future quote)

The pricing schemes for FFXIV are kind of ridiculous, but I won't be playing the game forever. I'm planning on paying the minimal fee so I can see if I like it or not. Plus, you get a month free when you start the game, so that should be plenty of time to check the game out and give it a trial run.

When The Elder Scrolls Online releases, however, I may just have to suck it up and pay for it full-tilt. Those are games I can get into for a long period of time, so I'll probably be just a tiny bit more justified in the month-to-month fee... right?

3. People need to leave Ben Affleck alone.
Seriously, what did this guy do to garner all this hate over him playing Batman? I think it's a great choice and he's a great actor. I've never seen a movie with him in it that I didn't like. Or at least, I've never seen a movie of his that I thought was terrible.

Yes, I saw Gigli, Phantoms and Daredevil. I personally like Daredevil, and Phantoms (in which he was da bomb, yo) and Gigli certainly weren't the best movies I've ever seen, but they weren't nearly as bad as jerks on the internet make them out to be. And even if one thinks that those movies are bad, exactly how much do they really believe that Affleck was the cause? He didn't write those films, or direct them, he just starred.

So I guess because Ben Affleck, a good actor, decides to take a few acting gigs in movies that people deem terrible means that we should crucify him for playing Batman? Really? The internet really needs to take a minute and think about the logic they use to come to a conclusion sometimes.

Just as a side note: I also think Ben Affleck should play Eddie Dean in The Dark Tower films if they ever get made.That's the guy I've always pictured since I read the character in The Drawing of the Three. Hate me, internet.

-Josh

Josh's Inner Dorkdon Journal - Episode 9

No content in over a month and a half?!

Unacceptable.

The Wolverine:
Saw it. It was ok. I wasn’t blown away, but I really don’t think that was the intention of the film makers. It was supposed to be a “bridging of the gap” for the new X-Men: Days of Future Past film, and I think it does that pretty well. One thing I thought was interesting about the movie was the fact that almost any character could have been in Wolverine/Logan’s place. This was very much a side-story featuring an extremely popular character. It works, I just don’t really think it was necessary in the grand scheme of the X-Men film franchise. But who am I to say what a “necessary” film is?
Overall, I’m probably in the extreme minority that likes the original Wolverine Origins movie better than this one.
Yeah, I said it: I like that movie better!
Lots of people hate on it, but I thought it was great. I think they could’ve handled Deadpool much better, but other than that, it was a great movie.

Games:
Things have been relatively quiet in the gaming world lately, which is odd considering the fact that two brand new consoles are going to be released at the end of this year. One thing that I find odd is just how many “AAA” titles are still being released for THIS generation after the release of the PS4 and Xbox One. It makes one wonder if just how much faith Sony and Microsoft have in their new product. Or maybe it’s that they’re being overly confident in thinking that the new systems will sell by the bucket-load, so they’re not pushing it as hard?
Whatever the case may be, I just figured information would be coming a lot more frequently than it has been. How ‘bout some more press conferences or something? 

Doom 3 Mods: 
Steam recently had a sale of all id Software games after the latest Quake-con. For something like $90, you could get nearly every major game the company has released since, and including, the Commander Keen games.
(I realize some of you may be thinking, “What the crap is Commander Keen?” Yeah, I’m old.)

The pack included the likes of Quake(s) 1-4, Doom(s) 1-3 (and BFG Edition), the two Wolf 3D games and even newer titles like Rage. For the old-school PC gamer, $90 is an extremely good deal, considering the quality of content. However, I didn’t buy the entire pack - just some selected titles that I used to have back in the day like the Quakes and Heretic/Hexen.
 In my rekindled love for all things id, I stumbled upon the Doom 3 mod community and found a total conversion mod for Doom 3 which converted the entire game into an all-new Hexen game called, “Edge of Chaos.” It looked amazing from the couple of demo videos and screenshots, so I decided to continue browsing the total conversion mods. The one that immediately caught my attention was “Doom 3: Classic.” This was a mod that basically re-created the entire first episode (Knee-Deep In The Dead) of the original Doom in the Doom 3 engine.
I downloaded and played.

It was amazing.

The level design, enemy placement, secret areas, weaponry and even the music (which is AWESOME, by the way) were completely and faithfully redone with graphics that hold up well with current-gen titles. As soon as you load the mod and start E1M1 (Episode 1, Map 1, for all you non-Doom Heads) and that awesome, metal guitar riff starts up (based off of Metallica’s song, “No Remorse,” in case you didn’t know), you have to wonder if this was the way John Carmack and John Romero originally envisioned the game back in the early 90’s.
I highly recommend purchasing Doom 3 on Steam (it’s only $10), if for nothing else but to experience a 100% faithful remake of the original shareware Doom. Just make sure you buy the original version of Doom 3. The mod (and most others) won’t work on the BFG Edition.

To convince you, here’s a video of the classic first level:

And here’s the Doom 3: Classic mod of the same level:

Pretty cool, right? Go get it… if you’re man (or woman) enough!

That’s about all I’ve got at the moment. I still need to post my review of The Last of Us which is now almost two months old (sorry)! I’ll try to get on that soon. Maybe even immediately after this post!

-Josh

Was J. J. Right for Star Trek?

I just finished reading something extremely interesting: An unpublished book by the late Michael Piller (1948-2005) which recounts his experience writing the screenplay for Star Trek: Insurrection. The book is titled Fade In and goes through nearly every detail of writing a screenplay, from conception, all the way to the reviews once the film is completed.

Piller, head of the writing staff for most of Star Trek: The Next Generation’s run, tells of how he got the job writing the third of The Next Generation cast’s feature films and all of the hardships that went along with it. Perhaps the most interesting thing about this process is what the film ultimately became: A disappointment in a lot of people’s eyes. Personally, I don’t share these feelings (I quite like Insurrection), but I’ve always been able to see where people have problems with it.

The biggest issue most folks have with the film is the fact that it feels like an extended episode of the television show. I’ll readily admit that it does to a certain extent. However, it’s still a good movie. Most people feel that, since it’s a more character driven work, it doesn’t come close to living up to the previous movie, First Contact, or even older Star Trek films such as Wrath of Khan. Both of those movies were pretty heavy on the action, something that, as Piller describes in his book, he never intended in the first place. He states that he wanted to have the film focus primarily on two things: Family and a hero’s journey for the Enterprise’s commanding officer, Jean-Luc Picard. Does the final film accomplish these things? Well… Sort of. The question is: Was that the writer’s fault?

Based on the evidence provided in the book, Piller started with one idea and ended up changing nearly everything he wrote on multiple occasions due to the suggestions of both Star Trek producer, Rick Berman and Picard himself, Sir Patrick Stewart. Originally, the film was about Picard having to rescue a malfunctioning Data (the android 2 nd officer of the Enterprise), which would entail Picard resigning his commission to Starfleet, while fighting Starfleet itself because of their disobedience of their own Prime Directive. The film would end on a cliffhanger, Picard being carted off by Starfleet Command because he stood by his personal convictions and those that the Federation was founded upon, leaving the audience wondering as to what would be his ultimate fate.

According to the script notes and discussions that these three guys had, their suggestions weren’t really all that bad. Berman felt as though there were things in the script which seemed a little too underwhelming, while Stewart thought that the family aspect had already been established multiple times throughout the TV show’s original run.

Understanding their concerns, Piller went through several rewrites and revisions until we got somewhere pretty close to the film we’ve all seen. But that’s the thing: Even then, it kind of wasn’t.
Piller reveals that, after a (what the studio executives deemed) bad test screening of the film, major cuts would have to be made which amped up the action. And here’s the point of the article…
Hollywood doesn’t understand Star Trek anymore.

I understand that a feature film has to be amped up to a certain degree, or at least be made on a more epic scale than an episode of a TV show. It’s when you start to lose the essence of what made the property great in the first place, you’re going to lose your audience. In my opinion, Piller’s original ideas that he conceived before the studio got heavily involved would have made a much better and more enjoyable experience for movie-goers. Particularly the hardcore fans of the franchise.
Take the 2009 reboot for example: Did Paramount make a lot of money off of that film? Absolutely. Did Star Trek fans enjoy it? There were some, but the overwhelming majority were those that went to see the newest, flashy action flick. A.K.A. non-Star Trek fans, or casual fans.

When I say things like this, I’m not trying to sound like some pompous film snob, or say that movies without substance are crap. That would be the furthest thing from the truth. What I’m trying to say is that Star Trek, as a franchise, was built on substance and deeper meaning. That’s why people like it in the first place. Another thing I’m trying to say is that (SHOCKER!!!) maybe it wasn’t J.J. Abrams’ fault for Star Trek not being very Star Trek-y. It may very well have been Paramount’s. All signs point to that very thing, especially given what’s in Michael Piller’s book.

Let’s think about it for a second. Rick Berman, the long-time producer of all things Star Trek had stepped down from his spot shortly before the new film was conceived. Paramount, not having to deal with his wanting to preserve the Star Trek legacy, were free to hire anybody they wanted to take the reins of the franchise.

“Hey, J.J. Abrams is a ‘hot’ name right now. He made Lost and that did really good on TV. He knows how to run a TV show, so he’ll probably know Star Trek!”

I imagine that Paramount’s thought process was something along these lines. However, they were wrong. I’ll admit, lens flares aside, Abrams does know how to make a good action movie. But was he right for Star Trek? I say no. I think it shows in the movie he and his writers made and the fact that he himself said, “I’m more of a Star Wars guy.”

Michael Piller, Rick Berman, and Patrick Stewart. They knew Star Trek. They understood what the fans wanted to see and how to formulate a story in that universe. Again, as I said in my article yesterday, the Abrams movie is good. There are some problems with it, in my opinion, but for the most part, it’s a good movie. There are things that are Star Trek, it just lacks the psychological subtext that the franchise is known for and comes off more as a straight-up, sci-fi action flick. So is that J.J.’s fault? I still say no. He was just doing a job he was hired to do. Paramount is the one to blame here since they probably shouldn’t have offered the job to him and his team in the first place.
All that being said, and back to one of the original points: I believe that had the Abrams movie contained more of the underlying themes that made the franchise great, its audience could have been even bigger.

While, yes, a lot of people loved the new Star Trek film, it lost a lot of long-time fans in the process. All things Trek up until that point have had a lasting impression with fans since 1966. That’s almost 50 years of longevity for millions of fans all over the world. I feel that the new movie franchise will continue to gain a completely new set of fans that dig the new “action-Trek,” but wouldn’t it have been great if those two sets of fans, both old and new, all liked Star Trek for the same reasons? It’s disappointing that fans will be separated now by pre-2009 and post-2009. Sure, you had that when The Next Generation premiered, but to my knowledge, no fans of the 1966 series hated the new one. They just “preferred” the old show, yet still loved The Next Generation.

But who knows? Maybe Into Darkness will somehow turn everybody around, myself included. Maybe there’ll be more substance added to this new version of Trek. I sincerely hope so. We’ll find out this Friday when Star Trek: Into Darkness opens in the States!

By the way, Michael Piller’s book, Fade In, was (as stated above) unpublished, so you won’t be able to buy it in stores. Unfortunately, due to Piller’s death in 2005, it probably never will be. So if you want to read it, just do a quick Google search, as it’s pretty easy to find.

See you… out there! (That’s number 1)
-Josh

Response To IGN's List of Star Trek Films

Recently, IGN ran an article that listed the Star Trek films from least to greatest in terms of quality. In this article, they list Star Trek: Insurrection as the “worst,” and Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan as the “best.” In addition, they list the 2009 “reboot” as the 3 rd best film in the franchise. Unfortunately, this ordering of the Star Trek films seems to be an opinion held by most casual fans.

The newest film, Star Trek: Into Darkness, will be released in theaters this Friday. Am I excited? Well, I want to see it, but just like the first film in the series “reboot,” I’m just a tad bit skeptical. I think that Hollywood and most of the movie-going public have lost the point (or never understood it) of Star Trek. The focus of the Star Trek franchise has always been that the more we learn about all these new species and worlds, we learn even more about ourselves as a race. Honestly, the new films are about high-octane action and little else. Visually, they look like Star Trek, but thematically they don’t feel like Star Trek.

Before I go any further: Anyone who has ever listened to any of our podcasts knows that I’m a huge fan of the 24 th century era of Star Trek. Meaning, I’m more of a fan of The Next Generation and Deep Space Nine than I am of The Original Series featuring Kirk, Spock, McCoy, etc. Do I hate TOS? Absolutely not. I will admit that I enjoy the feature films dealing with the original cast more than I do the series, but I can watch TOS and not have an urge to switch the channel. It’s by no means unbearable or anything of the sort. I never liked the idea of rebooting the franchise, because here was yet another situation that didn’t warrant it. A time-traveling sequel is something that I’d be down for, but using time travel as a way to make drastic changes to a beloved franchise with a rich mythology was, in my opinion, not the way to go. The only way that I’ll ever be comfortable with that is if the characters, by the end of this series of films, eventually change the past back to the way it originally was… Honestly, that would change my opinion of the new films greatly.

Also, another quick note: I believe that Star Trek works best predominantly on television as opposed to film. The films are great and allow for more “epic” stories, but the heart of Star Trek lies on the TV screen, as probably any Trek fan would tell you. The fact that a new franchise has started on film makes it less likely that Trek will return to the small screen anytime soon. And that is one of the most disappointing things overall. People who think they like Star Trek because of the 2009 J.J. Abrams movie will probably never check out the older shows because it “feels too dated,” or because they aren’t as “cool” as the Abrams film. This is a shame because these folks are missing out on what makes/made Star Trek a really good franchise. There’s more to Star Trek than flashy action and lens flares, I just don’t think Abrams has tapped into that stuff yet, and more than likely never will. Abrams had the perfect opportunity to freshly reintroduce Trek to a whole new audience, but that audience is getting what I (and many other long-time fans) consider to be a very “dumbed down” version of Star Trek.

With all that having been said, let’s go down IGN’s list (from 1-11) and make some comments, shall we? Afterwards, I’ll give my own personal list.


1. Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan
This is perhaps the most overhyped film in the franchise. I like it, but I believe that it is far from the best. I personally think that most people, at the time of the film’s original release, were just ecstatic to finally have a “good” Star Trek film, as opposed to the first, which was quite a boring experience. Star Trek II actually had action, good character development and seemed like an embodiment of what the franchise stood for. It felt more like its own film rather than trying to be an extension of 2001: A Space Odyssey.

2. Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home
Now this is one I can actually understand being in the number 2 spot. This is just a straight up great film. Part of its charm is the fact that it takes already established characters and puts them in a fish-out-of-water situation. Also, I’m always a sucker for a good time travel story.

3. Star Trek (2009)
And this is what I mean when I say that the general movie-going public doesn’t understand Star Trek anymore. There is absolutely no reason that this film should be this high on the list since there are far better, more “Trek-like” films rated worse. Yes, I enjoyed the film, but it was more so because it was good to see something that “kind of” looked like Star Trek on the big screen again. There were several problems I had with it, but it was a decent Trek movie. My biggest problem was that it was too “action/sci-fi” rather than just straight up sci-fi, which is what Trek always had been up until that point. Action in a Trek movie is fine, but when you lose the human element that the franchise is known for, it tends to become what feels like an imitation of something great.

4. Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country
The last film to feature the entire original cast. Not much to say other than this one can also be seen as deserving its high spot on an ordered list. Tis a great film. Also, it had Worf in it!

5. Star Trek: First Contact
The number 5 spot is much too low for this one, in my opinion. Everything that people loved about Star Trek was there: humanity, time-travel, emotion, etc. The only thing that it perhaps lacked was the exploration element. Although you could consider Picard and Data’s self-discovery as the exploration aspect of the film. Since it was a sequel to one of the most well-received episodes in all of Trek, however, I can see this lack of true exploration as forgivable.

6. Star Trek III: The Search for Spock
On my own list, I’d have to put this one on the spot right below The Wrath of Khan, as the two are directly related and one is impossible to have without the other. Personally, as far as my enjoyment goes and as a whole, I like this movie better than The Wrath of Khan.

7. Star Trek: Generations
I can definitely see this one being where it is on IGN’s list. The first film featuring the TNG crew, Generations is kind of a difficult movie to watch. For one: It looks weird. The filmmakers were definitely going for a more cinematic look to the film, but what resulted was a mess in cinematography. From a story standpoint, it was ok. It’s confusing at times and hard to keep up with, but would have made for, and probably been better suited as, an excellent 2-part episode of the TV series.

8. Star Trek: The Motion Picture
Waaaaaaaaaaay too high on the list. I know we’re only a few from the bottom, but there’s no way on God’s green earth that this should be above the movies that it is. It’s certainly not better than Insurrection. Best thing about it? It featured Jerry Goldsmith’s Star Trek theme which was a radical and much appreciated departure from the Desi-lu studios-style music of TOS. Other than that, the film is boooooooooring. I love Star Trek, but not enough to sit through this beast more than a few times ever.

9. Star Trek V: The Final Frontier
Why this movie gets hated on, I’ll never understand. I find it severely underrated. It’s one of the more comedic films in the series and is only rivaled by The Voyage Home.

10. Star Trek: Nemesis
I can understand why IGN would put Nemesis this low on the list. I personally don’t feel it should be this low, but I understand the hate it gets at times. It was made with a lower budget and one of the most endearing Star Trek characters of all time is killed off. I hated that as much as anyone else did, but you can’t tell me that the final scene when B4 starts whistling the tune signifying that pieces of Data’s memories remain inside him, and Picard walks away while his smile gets bigger and bigger as Goldsmith’s music swells, doesn’t make up for those two things. Plus, Tom Hardy as Picard’s “evil” twin/alternate version was absolutely brilliant. The theme of the movie, “the choices you make /environment in which you’re born can alter who you are” is, in my opinion, one of the best in the series and is executed perfectly.

11. Star Trek: Insurrection
Ok. People have officially lost their minds. I don’t think that Insurrection is the worst Trek movie, but it’s by far not the worst. The thing that really disappoints me is the fact that Insurrection truly does have everything that Star Trek is about. Exploration, humanity, emotion, action… It’s all present in Insurrection, yet most people don’t see it. Just more proof that people either don’t, or never understood Star Trek to begin with. The folks at IGN are apparently some of those people.

My personal list from greatest to “worst”:
1. Star Trek: First Contact
2. Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home
3. Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country
4. Star Trek: Insurrection
5. Star Trek V: The Final Frontier
6. Star Trek: Nemesis
7. Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan
8. Star Trek III: The Search for Spock
9. Star Trek: Generations
10. Star Trek (2009)
11. Star Trek: The Motion Picture

So where will the new Trek film fall on this list? I’m guessing right after the 2009 “reboot.” I’ve read some spoilers about film and I think that what they’ve done is an attempt to rehash the number 1 movie on IGN’s list (which is probably why IGN will give it a glowing review). I’m going to do my best to go into the movie with an open mind, but because of my (in a lot of ways) disappointment in J.J. Abrams and his writers’ grasp on the franchise, I can’t help but remain skeptical. My opinions of the new film will continue next week in part II!

-Josh

Source: IGN