E3: Who Won?

Gamers, that's who. There were so many huge announcements, awesome games, and really intriguing news ideas at this year's E3 it's hard to keep track. But, in the time honored tradition, I'm just gonna list the big 3 in order of how great their E3 was. Cause, you know. I'm lazy.

Microsoft

I think, without a doubt, M$ (har har) won the show. While the games lineup is robust, the most talked about 360 announcement was Natal, a motion sensing technology that seems far more advanced than anything Nintendo or Sony offer. Anyone who has ever heard me rant on the subject knows that I'm not what anyone would call a fan of motion sensing in games. To me, most games that employ motion sensing on Wii or PS3 (with some exceptions) just feel gimmicky and out of place. Natal, however, seems to take it to a new level. While all of it looks cool, just being able to navigate the dashboard with your hands Minority Report style is, to me, really cool. Since it won't be released until at least next year there is plenty of time to see Natal in action, but there is great reason to be optimistic.

Even without Natal, though, the Xbox game lineup would still give MS the edge. Mass Effect 2, Halo ODST and Halo Reach, Alan Wake, Metal Gear Solid: Rising, and many others show that the 360 is still the place for the "hardcore". I suppose the only real issue I have with the 360's lineup is the relative lack of innovation. Sure, the games all seem awesome, but they aren't much different than games the 360 has offered in the past. I think if Microsoft really wants to continue its upward momentum, new and varied gameplay is necessary. If Natal can live up to its promise, suddenly Shane Kim saying that the 360 has a 10 year lifespan seems pretty realistic.

Sony

After Sony's disastrous show last year and lagging behind both Microsoft and Nintendo, Playstation needed a big boost from E3, and that is exactly what they got. From motion control that looks better implemented than the Wii's current offerings to a diverse showing of games, Sony seems to be on the upswing. That is, of course, if anyone could afford to buy a PS3. One of the biggest reasons that Sony doesn't lead this list is the lack of a price cut. With Wii and 360 selling for significantly less than the PS3 and with much greater install bases, it seems really odd that Sony wouldn't finally cave and announce a significant price cut.

If you could afford to buy a PS3, though, you are going to get some pretty great games. Exclusives like God of War 3 and Uncharted 2 were expected and look outastanding, but the big announcement for me was The Last Guardian. Made by the team that created Ico and Shadow of the Colossus (one of the top 5 games of the last generation), there isn't a lot of information out about the game yet, but the footage I've seen is absolutely incredible. It's games like this that really seperate Sony from the competition.

The other interesting announcement was the PSP Go!, a new version of the PSP without a UMD drive and a different interface. Looks cool...until you see the price tag. $250 is simply insane for a portable device. You can buy a Wii with that. Not that you'd have anything to do with it...

Nintendo

Oh, right, speaking of. Nintendo looked like they were heading off a cliff during the early part of E3, completely abandoning the core fan base in favor of 12 year old girls, soccer moms, and grandma and grandpa. The Wii Vitality Sensor (maybe the stupidest fucking peripheral I've ever seen) was looking like the climactic moment of Nintendo's press conference. That is, until Mario Galaxy 2 and Metroid: Other M were announced, saving Nintendo the ire of jilted fanboys everywhere (unless you wanted a new Zelda game).

In all honesty, the Wii as a platform really has eschewed traditional gamers. The formula seems to be throw out a bunch of stuff we don't really care about while providing 2 or 3 huge titles per year. Galaxy 2 looks almost identical to Galaxy 1 (which is actually a good thing) and Metroid: Other M actually looks really great. I'm not as sold on New Super Mario Bros Wii, but hey, it could be fun. The best thing about E3 for Nintendo was Shigeru Miyamoto confirming that a new Zelda game is actually in the works. Of course, it probably won't be out for 3 years.

What really does seem at least somewhat problematic for Nintendo is the zealous push from Sony and Microsoft on motion capabilities. Natal looks like a whole new experience, while the Sony project seems to be a refinement of what has made Wii so successful. Nintendo's price point and focus on family driven gameplay likely means that Wii will still own this generation, but MS and Sony seem ready to take the reins of motion control and lash them to their own stallions, creatures no doubt made out of solid gold.

E3

I haven't blogged much lately, but don't worry. You're about to get all you can handle. E3, the big video game expo, returned to its former glory after a few years in the wilderness. Since I began closely following gaming news, I can't remember a bigger amount of significant games and potentially groundbreaking innovations announced at one time. I'll get into things more deeply, but I wanted to do a quick series of lists of things that intrigue me about E3.

Biggest Surprises
1. Mario Galaxy 2 announced
2, Metal Gear Solid: Rising announced for 360 as well as PS3
3. Final Fantasy 14 announced before 13 even comes out

Biggest Disappointments
1. No new Zelda game for Wii
2. PSP Go! is 250 god damn dollars
3. God of War 3 pushed back to March 2010

Most Intriguing Games
1. Alan Wake
2. Borderlands
3. Star Wars: The Old Republic

What the Fuck?
1. Nintendo announced Wii Vitality add-on
2. Sony not announcing a price drop for PS3 or PS3 slim
3. Square announcing Final Fantasy 14 before 13 comes out

Boldly Go

Before Saturday, I have never seen anything related to Star Trek. Never seen an entire episode of any of the show's many iterations and not one minute of any of the movies. It's not that I'm opposed to the concept, I have just never really cared. Sure, Trekkies seem a bit out there, but who I am to critique someone else's nerdiness?

So, with this firmly in mind, I ventured into the world of the USS Enterprise, to boldly go where I have never gone before. And I'd do it again. Star Trek is the most entertaining blockbuster I have seen in years. While it doesn't quite have the dramatic weight of The Dark Knight or Robert Downey Jr.'s star power in Iron Man, Trek strikes a perfect balance between popcorn entertainment and legitimate emotion that is rarely seen in summer movie fare (see Wolverine for more details).

Director JJ Abrams (Lost, MI:3) is the perfect man for the job, letting his penchant for character driven action to move the plot while also delivering some amazing action scenes. I think the only criticism I have of Abrams as a big screen director is his weakness at filming close quarter combat scenes. It's not the shaky cam, quick cut nonsense of the Bourne movies, but Abrams brings the camera in too close, making it difficult to see the entire fight. This is only an issue briefly in Star Trek, but it is worth mentioning. In general, though, Abrams creates a believable and compelling world, one that I hope he continues with. The person I feel the worst for here is George Lucas. Star Trek blows away all of the Star Wars prequels, mainly because Abrams is able to seperate good special effects from the plot. If you are going to reboot (not an entirely accurate word) a classic sci fi series, Lucas would have done well to ask Abrams his opinion.

As for the movie, there's not a lot I can say without giving away spoilers. It is an origin story, but not necessarily in the way you'd think. The movie opens with Kirk being born at the same moment his father is killed by a massive Romulan ship. As the young Kirk (Chris Pine) gets older, his wild tendencies and off the charts aptitude tests catch the eye of Captain Pike (the always outstanding Bruce Greenwood) who offers him a place in Starfleet Academy. Simultaneously, a young Spock (Zach Quinto) decides to leave Vulcan to join Star Fleet, where he quickly becomes the (ahem) star of the fleet. Much of the action revolves around Spock and Kirk's dichotomous personalities and the question of how to go about combating the Romulan threat.

The film rests on Pike and Quinto pulling off their roles, and they do so brilliantly. When I first saw the trailer for Star Trek, it looked like Trek 90210. Thankfully, the young actors throughout the cast are very good, especially Simon Pegg as Scotty (hopefully this will be the franchise that finally launches him into mainstream stardom). Eric Bana is appopriately cruel and scary as the Romulan Nero, and Karl Urban is surprisingly funny and good as McCoy. Really, the cast is the strongest point in a film that has a lot of them.

The most interesting and important cast member, though, is a blast from the past. Leanord Nimoy makes an extended appearance as Spock, and it is his appearance that makes the whole thing work. The big twist is both clever and a simple way to allow this new Trek continuity to exist without destroying decades of storylines. Nimoy is the film's emotional center and is given the most poignant scenes. It is a great nod to his past work, but also provides for an outstanding climax that cements this Trek as one of the best sci fi movies in recent memory.

Short version? It's awesome, and you have to see it. I know less than nothing about Star Trek, but I felt completely at home with this new version. It is perfectly cast, the effects are jaw dropping (even for jaded movie cynics) and Abrams gives the film a real pathos that most summer movies lack. I can't wait to see where this franchise goes, and hope that Abrams is at the center of it. Since he just made the best fantasy epic since Lord of the Rings, I think he's earned it. I'm gushing now, so I think I'll stop. It's just fantastic when a summer movie is both bad ass and doesn't insult your intelligence. This Trek really does go where no one has gone before.

Snikt!

Let's be clear: Wolverine should be in an R-rated movie. There should be blood, flying limbs, and expletives. He shouldn't have feelings. Alas, that's not what we got with X-Men Origins: Wolverine. That, however, is not necessarily an indictment of this X-Men prequel, which is actually pretty good at what it does, though certainly not the best (har har).

The movie opens confusingly, with a young Logan realizing he, in fact, has bone claws that he can use to gouge people with. There's some thing about a guy not being his father, or whatever, but it is never really mentioned again. What it does serve to do is establish that Wolvie and Sabertooth (played by Liv Schrieber) are brothers. It then moves into a particularly cool montage of the mutant siblings fighting in every American war since 1860 up to Vietnam. After some gruesome displays by Victor (Sabertooth), they are sentenced to be executed by firing squad. And when that doesn't work (you know, the mutant healing factor thing), they are put on a mutant special forces team, led by Colonel Stryker who is sadly not played by Bryan Cox.

If this sounds like a lot of plot, it is. There's a bunch more, but it is all crammed into the first 20 minutes. The rest is your basic revenge story. Once Logan is unwilling to participate in the questionable morals Stryker demands, he leaves the team and becomes a logger in the Canadian Rockies where he, obviously, falls in love. And, just as obviously, Victor ends up killing her, thrusting Logan back into the action.

The best part of the movie is when the adamantium is grafted into Logan's skeleton. It is really only here that he displays the raw, animalistic side of Wolverine. The rest is basically a mish mash of the X-Men movies, complete with detaining mutants and attempting to rob them of their powers. It's been done before, and better. My big issue with the movie was that it didn't feel any different than X-Men 2. Sure, the other X-Men are (mostly) absent, but the tone and style is almost identical.

This may have to do with Hugh Jackman. I like Jackman. Loved The Prestige, he was outstanding in The Fountain. I'm down with Hugh. I just don't think he's the right actor for Wolverine. First, he is not savage or aggressive enough. The man is a Tony Award winning actor who can ballroom dance for God's sake. There are brief moments in the movie when that side comes out, but those are few and far between. The second is, let's face it, Jackman is a Greek god. The man is ripped eight ways to Sunday. They find excuses to have him take his shirt off. That ain't Wolverine. Wolverine is short, scrappy, and stocky. He's supposed to be like an actual wolverine. I can't really think of a big name actor who could play this role, but Jackman just isn't quite right. Really, if this wasn't "Wolverine", I might have enjoyed it even more. Jackman makes Logan his own, which is what you are supposed to do as an actor, but it just doesn't evoke the comic book version of the character.

Two other big problems: Gambit and the special effects. Gambit has always been my favorite X-Man. Cool Cajun accent, awesome powers, wanted to bang Rogue in the tv show. In this, good Lord. The actor is so forgettable I don't even care about going to IMDB to find out his name. He doesn't even have an accent. It's just bad. Worse, though, are some of the special effects. The qaulity varies widely from looking absolutely amazing to not fit for a Sci Fi movie of the week. It is amazing that a blockbuster movie could have such shoddy effects. In a movie like this, that kind of thing really hurts.

If all of this makes it seem like I hated the movie, I'm probably just a bad writer. I really enjoyed it. I would put it second in the X-Men franchise behind X2. It certainly won't win any awards, and there are some serious issues, but overall it's a fun night at the movies. The helicopter chase scene is the best piece of action cinema I have seen since Dark Knight. If Marvel had been willing to break with the X-Men franchise and really do this thing right, I think there was enough here to be amazing. But when you have to make $250 million, it doesn't pay to make Wolvie into a whirlwind of blood and guts. However, If you like comic book movies, it's a must see Bub.

State of Play

The decline of newspapers is an indelible fact of modern American culture. The internet and cable news has essentially forced out the erstwhile ink-stained wretch desperately pecking away at his typewriter trying to make the first edition. You know, someone should make a movie about this. Russell Crowe, you say? Sign me up!

State of Play had the opportunity to be something special. With a great cast at its disposal, it could have been the anti-All the President’s Men, depicting the fall of American newspaper journalism. What we got instead was a relatively interesting political thriller with tantalizing bits of prescience tucked in. The story involves the death of a Congressman’s (Ben Affleck’s) aide and the conspiracy surrounding it. Crowe plays Affleck’s friend and “Washington Globe” reporter assigned to the story. Along with hot blogger Rachel McAdams, the intrepid duo try to hunt down the truth…before it’s too late.

It’s pretty ho hum stuff, but some of it has style and the acting is great. The only problem is, I still don’t know what the hell happened. The ending made no sense, and there was a bunch of plot that didn’t really seem to go anywhere or matter. The film also tugged at intriguing threads, especially concerning the importance of selling papers. Helen Mirren, who plays the news editor, continually screams at Crowe for his unwillingness to run with sensational and titillating stories in favor of “real” news. Which, of course, is what newspaper journalism has essentially become. In its losing war against real time cable news and blogging, newspapers are attempting to become the very things that are making them irrelevant.

This, I think, could make a great movie, and would not be unlike Season 5 of The Wire. Unfortunately, State of Play was content to be a decent political thriller. And, in this era of Hollywood taking the easy way out, that should be news to no one.

Riddles in the Dark

This cartoon always freaked me out.

The Hobbit has been a film somewhat shrouded in mystery, with talk of a "bridge" film between it and the LOTR trilogy. This was a prospect that always made me wary, as the idea of making a non-Tolkien work canonical seemed, at best, a dicey proposition. Luckily, director Guillermo del Toro and producer Peter Jackson have decided against that route, instead splitting up The Hobbit into two films. The article says that the White Council and the wanderings of Gandalf (which are not discussed in the book) were originally meant to form the second film, but will now be weaved throughout the story.

I couldn't be happier with this development. I always felt as though The Hobbit was more than what one movie could provide, but also somewhat less than two, if that makes any sense. I think interspersing the concurrent Gandalf storyline will work far better as part of a greater work and will necessarily have to take fewer literary chances than a stand alone film. Not that my excitement level could really be any higher for films coming out in 2011 and 2012, but this is great news.

Valued Customers

What should be a moment of great joy in my life has become one of despair. Despair in knowing that Peter Jackson will eventually make, like, 10 grand off me. The Lord of the Rings is being released on Blu-Ray sometime this year, but the release will be (wait for it) the theatrical cut! Not that I have some sort of hatred towards the movies I saw in the theater, but the extended editions are far superior. This is, of course, all rumor at this point, as no official announcement has been made to that end, but it's obviously true. Why release what everyone wants when you can release it at a later date, and after us HD-starved LOTR fanboys have already bought the theatrical cut? It's just good business.

Snark aside, it is good business. They know their customer. Does anyone really think that I won't go out and buy this the day it comes out, and then buy the extended editions the day they come out? Of course not. Then, I'll have four different copies of the same movie! Who wouldn't want that?