Why Do Videogame Movies Fail?

game console2016 was supposed to be the year of videogame adaptations. Finally, after years and years and years of failures dating all the way back to 1993 with the release of the utterly atrocious “Super Mario Bros.” movie, directors, producers and studios have attempted to bring beloved videogame properties to life on the big screen, with no luck. Even the best videogame movies, such as “Mortal Kombat”, are still only considered good by videogame movie standards and fail when measured up to literally anything else. This year, things were meant to change, damn it! We were going to have “Warcraft”, “Ratchet & Clank”, “Assassin’s Creed”, “Angry Birds”, and they were all going to be good! Well, okay, maybe not that last one, but things were looking up! As it turns out, no, they’re not – “Ratchet & Clank” was critically panned, proving once and for all that a fun game does not necessarily make a good movie, and according to early reviews “Warcraft” might be even worse. It really says something when friggin’ “Angry Birds” is currently the highest rated videogame movie of all time, doesn’t it? I still have hope for “Assassin’s Creed”, which is due to release in December, but considering the fact that A) most of it is set in modern times as opposed to a historical setting like in the games, B) it comes out mere days after “Star Wars”, and C) that horrible Kanye West song somehow made it into the trailer makes me think that the people behind it have no idea what they’re doing.

But why are things turning out like this? Why do people seem unable to make good videogame movies? Some people say that videogames are simply unfilmable – they’re a different medium entirely, and once you remove the interactive element you lose most of the immersion. No offense, but these people are idiots. First of all, books and comics are also a different medium, but they’ve given us some damn fine movies over the years. Second of all, if games are only ever entertaining if they’re being played, then why is the Let’s Play culture thriving so much? Millions of people are flocking towards famous YouTubers in order to watch them play videogames. If the interactive element was truly so important for immersion, then surely the Let’s Play culture would’ve made no sense?

If you ask me, the big problem stems from the fact that filmmakers simply don’t understand their source material properly. They don’t understand the significance of what they’re filming, and how to properly narrate it to their audience. For example, the way you build suspense in a game is a lot different from the way you do it in a movie, which is why a lot of horror game adaptations (such as “Silent Hill” or “Resident Evil”) just don’t work. The goal of the filmmaker is to narrate the same experience to his or her audience that the player would get from playing the game. Instead, what directors are trying to do is take elements from the game and just shove them in the movie for no reason other than to say “Hey, remember THAT from the game? It’s here too!”, but without understand just WHY they’re there. The “Silent Hill” movie I mentioned is like a goldmine for this kind of thing, as I could literally spend an entire article writing about it, but let’s just limit it to two examples, shall we? “Silent Hill” is an adaptation of the first “Silent Hill” game – remember that, that is important. In “Silent Hill 3”, after the main character Heather loses her father, she goes on a car ride to the town of Silent Hill and has a discussion about the fact that her life as she knew it is basically over. All the while, the song “Letter From The Lost Days” plays in the background, which, as you can hear, is rather relevant to the conversation. In the “Silent Hill” movie, the main character takes her daughter to Silent Hill with her car, and the same song plays, but since the context is so different the choice of music doesn’t really make sense. Similarly, one of the most famous characters from the series is the eponymous Pyramid Head, who first appeared in “Silent Hill 2” as a manifestation of main character James’ guilt over having committed a murder, with a design inspired by a painting of an executioner. In the movie, Pyramid Head is simply a demon who shows up for a little bit and chases the protagonist around for absolutely no reason other than for the director to wink to the fans and say “See, this is just like the games!” As you may have noticed, both of those examples include trying to shove things into an adaptation of the first “Silent Hill” game which weren’t even part of it in the first place.

Will we ever see a good videogame movie? Hopefully! The adaptation of the game “The Last of Us”, which is generally regarded as one of the best games of all time, was written by the same person who wrote and directed the game, so when, or rather if that ever gets off the ground we might be looking at the world’s first great videogame movie. Fingers crossed!

What’s The Best eBook Reader?

kindleThere’s no denying the fact that eBooks have become immensely popular over the last few years, and while they’re nowhere near close enough to matching dead tree books in terms of popularity (and probably never will be), their market share is growing each year thanks to the push by various companies with interest in the area, most specifically Amazon. Nowadays even the most basic phones and tablets you can buy can read ePubs and Mobis with the right software installed on them, which has led to more people than ever before giving electronic books a try. But what’s the best way to read them? Hell, is there even such a thing as a best way to do that?

Honestly, the title of this article is a bit deceiving, as I have absolutely no idea what the best eBook reader is, objectively speaking. I haven’t tested them all, and there’s just so many of them! Amazon made a bajillion versions of their Kindle, and then there’s also the Nook and whatever the hell the Kobo is, not to mention the various Android and Apple tablets which also support Kindle and Nook apps, and then there’s also reading on a PC… You know what, on second thought, screw reading on a PC. Nobody needs that hassle.

While I can’t really give you an objective opinion on what the best e-reader on the market is (for all I know, the Kobo might be the greatest thing since sliced bread), I can give you my own, personal experience from my research and explain how I reached my own choice. First and foremost, I’d strongly suggest that you do NOT buy any kind of device with a backlight with the express purpose of using it as an e-reader. That means iPads, tablets or some Kindle versions (such as Kindle Fire) are out of the running. There should be absolutely nothing stopping you from buying one such device anyway (for example, I own an iPad for reading comic books), but trust me, reading on anything with a backlight for more than 15-20 minutes at a time sucks badly.

So now the big question is – Kindle, Nook or Kobo? The reason why I stayed away from the Kobo is because I’d never heard of it, and no one I knew had one, and since pack mentality is strong in me when it comes to things I don’t fully understand, I decided to try my chances elsewhere. As for the Nook, after some research I ultimately chose not to pursue that either, for several reasons. First and foremost, their library of available books is a lot more limited when compared to that of the Kindle, and second of all, I’ve read about some shady practices where certain books people have bought on Nook have suddenly become unavailable. At the end of the day, I decided that with the biggest book library, a wide selection of hardware models and native support for Audible, the Kindle is the way to go.

Pretty much any Kindle that doesn’t have an intrusive backlight is perfect. I own a Kindle 3, which has been so amazing that I haven’t even thought about upgrading, but since that one’s no longer being manufactured I would have to recommend the Kindle Voyage, which pretty much the best that the Kindle brand has to offer right now in terms of basic e-readers.

Marvel’s Civil War – Differences Between the Movie and the Comic

civil warMarvel’s 2006 event comic event “Civil War” was one of the company’s biggest ones, scoping across the entire Marvel universe. Pretty much every single Marvel hero who was alive and on Earth at the time was involved in one way or another, whether in the main books or in their own spinoff series. At the time, “Civil War” received universal critical acclaim for completely shattering and reshaping the Marvel universe and presenting a fresh new perspective on the hero vs hero conflict (remember – up until that point, the classic formula of hero vs hero fights involved only fighting for a bit before teaming up against a bad guy, and there was no bad guy in sight during “Civil War”). While fan opinion on the story is more mixed these days (and with good reason – some of the content within is pretty questionable), the fact that its 2016 movie adaptation holds a 90% on “Rotten Tomatoes” just goes to show that the core of the storyline still works ten years later. But obviously the Marvel Cinematic Universe is much different from the Marvel Comics Universe, so why don’t we take a closer look at both stories and compare the similarities and the differences? Be warned – there will be plenty of spoilers ahead!

For all of the differences to the source material, there’s also a lot of symbolic similarities to the comic books, too – for example, both the movie and the comic open with a young hero screwing up and accidentally causing a catastrophe. In the movie, that hero is the newest Avenger Scarlet Witch, who mistakenly sends suicide bomber Crossbones into a building full of people. In the comics, though, the perps are a little-known team known as the New Warriors who decide to take on a team of supervillains way out of their league while being filmed for a reality TV show, and as a result cause an explosion that kills hundreds of people, including dozens of children. The result is the same, though – the government passes a bill which requires superheroes to take responsibility for their actions. But the law in question is also different – in the movies, the Sokovia Accords is limited only to the Avengers and sets to essentially turn them into a private UN task force. As a result, heroes operating outside of the Avengers (such as Daredevil or Jessica Jones) wouldn’t really face any repercussions for their crime fighting other than maybe being charged with vigilantism (as if any superhero was ever sent to jail for that), which isn’t the case in the comics, where the Superhuman Registration Act applies to every superpowered individual. It requires them to not only start working as, essentially, agents of SHIELD, but to also register their secret identities within a SHIELD database – a database which can, potentially, be hacked, thus placing their loved ones in danger.

In both the movie and the comics, Iron Man starts supporting the law after a mother confronts him and blames him for the death of her son, while Captain America becomes a fugitive after choosing to oppose him. In both mediums, there are scenes in which the heroes are this close to reaching a solution, only to have it all go to hell, but other than that, the similarities in the first act are few and far in between. Characters that are prominent in the movie, such as Black Panther, barely show up in the comics, and characters with huge roles in the comics, like Spider-Man (who reveals his secret identity to the world in support of the Superhuman Registration Act) only shows up in the movie for one fight scene. Bucky, the Winter Soldier, isn’t present in the comics at all, while he’s the driving force of the movie. The first big superhero fight scene is also very different – in the movie, Tony’s team of heroes corner Cap’s at the airport, while in the comics Cap is lured to a burning factory. Both fights end with a member of Cap’s team growing gigantic (Ant-Man in the movie and Goliath in the comics), but while Ant-Man is defeated “Empire Strikes Back”-style in the movie, Goliath is killed by a clone of Thor in the comics. In the movie, the only casualty of the fight is Rhodey, who survives, but loses the use of his legs.

While in the movie Captain America manages to escape, at the cost of most of his team, in the comics Tony’s team is so shocked by Goliath’s death that they pretty much let Captain America and most of his team escape. From then on, a lot of heroes change sides – Sue Storm, the Invisible Woman, is disgusted by Tony Stark’s actions and leaves her family in order to support Captain America, while several of Steve’s teammates leave out of fear of ending up dead or on the run for the rest of their lives. In the movie, the only person who switches sides is Black Widow, who betrays Tony’s team and then disappears. In both mediums, Cap’s teammates (at least the ones that refuse to register) are imprisoned – in the comics, they’re locked up in a special prison in another dimension (because comics), while in the movie the prison is simply underwater.

That prison is precisely where the comics sets its climax, where Captain America manages to release all of his teammates, beginning a final offensive against Iron Man’s forces. The movie never quite tops the spectacle of the airport fight, though, instead preferring for a simpler, more emotionally-packed fight between Iron Man and Cap & Bucky. The fights, and subsequently the stories, end completely differently – in the movie, Steve manages to completely overwhelm his friend, literally and figuratively breaking his heart before leaving his shield behind, busting his teammates out of prison and forming the Secret Avengers with them. In the comics, though, in the midst of battle Steve realizes that they’re just fighting for the sake of fighting and not to protect the people like they’d swore to do, so he surrenders to the authorities and is later assassinated on his way to his trial. If you ask me, that might have been a stronger ending for the movie, but I guess they wanted to leave Cap alive for “Infinity War” (not that anything has ever stopped Marvel from bringing people back from the dead before).

Anyway, I hope you had fun learning about all the differences between the comic and the movie! Obviously, since we’re talking about two entirely different universes I couldn’t list every single little thing, but this should give you a pretty good idea and allow you to brag to your friends when you go and see the movie again for the third time.

The Retro Gaming Culture

retro gamesToday, gaming technology is at its peak. Games like “The Last of Us” bring us Hollywood-worthy story and performances, technologies like the Oculus Rift and the HTC Vive bridge the gap between the virtual world and our own and mobile platforms allow us to bring our games with us literally wherever we go without needing to worry about taking anything other than the essential items we carry every day. With the gaming industry being by far the most successful financially, overshadowing the movie and music industries, it’s pretty clear that we’re living in a golden age of gaming no matter how you look at it. Games have never been more immersive, more groundbreaking, more… Well, good. Or have they?

Despite the fact that today’s games provide all sorts of experiences, there’s still a group of dedicated gamers who don’t want anything to do with that. No, to them, gaming stopped existing somewhere around 1995, since the majority (or in some cases the only) games they play are from the very early days of the medium. We’re talking about titles for the NES, SNES, Genesis, Nintendo 64, even early operating systems such as DOS. “Mega Man”, “Super Mario 64”, “Comix Zone”, “Star Fox”, “Final Fantasy” and “King’s Quest” are all games with lasting appeal which the retro gamers hold in high esteem. Many of those games have received sequels in the modern era, but oddly enough it’s the originals which remain the most lasting among the retro crowd.

So the obvious question is why? Why are so many people ignoring the marvels of modern gaming and sticking instead to the old classics? Well, every retro gamer has his or her own reason behind it. A popular sentiment online is that “nowadays games just suck”, which is pretty obviously untrue, but it’s still a perfectly valid personal opinion to have. Still, I believe there’s far more than that. Many (even most) retro gamers grew up with the retro systems, and to them, retro games are a way to get a small taste of what made them happy as a child. It’s exactly why so many of us hold classic Disney movies in our hearts – they allow us to remember and maybe even relive a simpler time, a time when we had very few responsibilities and a lot of spare time.

But there’s another reason, a more objective one. The interesting fact about retro games is that they’re all very minimalistic, in both appearance and gameplay. Working with very primitive technology, game designers had to use every trick in the book in order to create the experience they wanted (for example, the clouds and bushes in “Super Mario Bros.” are the exact same object, just colored white or green). In today’s gaming, if the player had to be taught that their character can double-jump, all it’d take was a character shouting “Quick! Use your double jump/jetpack/rocket boots to get over this gap!” But in the early days of gaming this obviously couldn’t work, so game designers had to get creative. I’d like to show you this presentation by Internet personality Egoraptor who goes in great length about the various tricks that designers used in order to use what little assets they had intelligently.

My point is that many people enjoy this type of minimalist design quite a lot. And why shouldn’t they? When done right, it’s a work of art. Many of the most popular games today (like “Minecraft” or “Dota 2”) are well-liked precisely because they allow you to do a lot with very little. Despite their limitations, they, like the games of old, have been custom-built to provide a very particular experience to the player, which is definitely something worth admiring. It’s true that many of today’s games can learn a lesson or two about intelligent design from their retro counterparts. And at the end of the day, isn’t that a good enough reason to love them?

How Do I Read So Much?

booksIt’s no secret that I read a lot. Like, a TON. I don’t always read a lot, true, but my average is 3-4 books a week. That’s about a book every 2 days, which is a lot more than most people read. I’ve received two questions regarding that fact – one of them is how I’m able to read so much, and the other is where I find all those hundreds of books to read. Well, the answer to the first question is obvious – I just pick up a book and I read it, simple as that. I don’t bother with any speed reading techniques or anything of this sort. Naturally, I read between 400 and 500 words per minute, depending on the text, which is a speed that I’m very comfortable with. At that speed, it takes me roughly 6 hours to read a 400-page novel, but again – if the text flows well and the words are relatively simple it can go faster. My “trick”, if you can even call it that, is that I dedicate roughly 2-3 hours per day to reading.

Now, the other question, which is a lot more interesting to me, is just where do I find all those books. Books are expensive! Well, yeah, they are, but they don’t have to be. The thing you have to understand about me is that I’m really not a picky reader. As long as the thing I’m reading is interesting to me, then I will read it. I don’t limit myself to Nebula-award winners or New York Times bestsellers. As a result, a lot of what I read are self-published novels that I can get for cheap or even for free. I’ve already spoken about a wonderful service called Freebooksy which sends free books to your e-mail every single day. As long as you own a Kindle (or a tablet from which you can download the Kindle app) you can access these books and read them at your leisure. Sometimes there’s some real stinkers, which is to be expected, but most are surprisingly good! And with 10-15 free books every single day, you’re bound to find at least a couple that sound really interesting to you.

The other place where I pick up my books from is Audible. Audible is the lead provider of audiobooks which has been doing an absolutely fantastic job supplying me with fresh new reads! You can purchase any book from them that you like, but if you have a subscription (about $15 a month) you receive one credit per month which you can use to get ANY book you like for free. If you love it, you can keep it, and if not, you can return it, get your credit back and find something else to listen to. I like to think of it a bit as a $15 subscription to a library of audiobooks. I can listen to them while walking to work, or while playing videogames, and that way I knock out a few more titles per week.

And the best part is that sometimes Freebooksy and Audible combine in awesome way! Sometimes, if you own the Kindle edition of a book, you can get the audiobook from Audible for next to nothing (something like $2-3). And when you get the Kindle edition for free from Freebooksy, well, buying the audiobook for super cheap is like an offer you can’t refuse. You can buy a book for the price of a cup of coffee. How awesome is that?