An Infamous Practice: Diversity In Video Games

Right now the biggest event in the gaming world, the Electronic Entertainment Expo (E3), is coming to a close. It's the event where game companies and tech developers announce the projects they've been working on for the public. Everything from new hardware I'll never be able to afford, to games I'll never have time to play. Still, despite mostly being my own personal version of window shopping, I do enjoy seeing the new and innovative elements at play in the gaming industry. However, every year, I'm frustrated. Disappointed. The one thing the gaming world could use is the thing that never comes.

Spot the difference.

Back in 2009, one of my favourite games to come out was 'Infamous'. You played as every man Cole Mcgrath, a courier with a gruff demeanour that depending on how you played, became more "Good" and more "Evil" as the game progressed. When a package that Cole delivers explodes, it causes mass destruction to his home, Empire City, a fictional stand-in for New York City. The explosion grants him incredible electrical superpowers as well, and you play you can restore the city to its former glory, and keep it from falling siege to gangs taking advantage of the time of crisis. At the time I praised the game for its unique gameplay style, that emphasized fluidity, something that would only improve as the series went on. 'inFamous' was also an open world that catered to the player's individual experience. What I didn't realize at the time, was that beneath the surface, 'inFamous' had more to say than your typical superhero adventure.

The clip above takes place after it gets revealed to the people of Empire City, that the bomb that destroyed the lives of so many people was, in fact, a package being delivered by Cole. Of course, Cole has nothing to do with the packages he delivers. He takes them from his office and escorts them around the city being none the wiser as to what the package entails. Still, in a time of pain and suffering, the people around him look to him for blame. Since she lost her sister in the explosion, his girlfriend, Trish, even has a hard time dealing with the news.

The missed opportunity here is that Cole, like so many video game protagonists, is white. This is not to say that the story of 'inFamous' is not compelling because of the colour of his skin. Cole still remains a well-crafted character, as do the other characters in the game. But just imagine how much more potent that scene would play out if Cole were middle eastern, or even if he were a Muslim. Suddenly, it becomes a commentary on the prevailing Islamophobia that becomes more overt in the wake of a public attack. When Cole asks the player if they've ever been called a terrorist, it's supposed to be something to which that we the audience say "No of course not, I can't even imagine that." but for many people, the answer could very well be "Yes I have, and it was horrible."

It would bring a deeper level to the interactions of Cole with the other characters, as well as how you play the game. When the game asks you to choose between a good or evil act, at the back of your mind, you would take into account the resentment that comes with waking up brown in a city that isn't. When his best friend Zeke starts to look at him questioningly, it puts a strain on their relationship, because the two are such close friends. If Cole were a darker skin tone, it would be even more uncomfortable, as it would show the experience of a person of colour even with people they thought to be their friends. This would only be worsened by the fact that Zeke is a gun-toting Elvis enthusiast with a southern accent, whose middle name is Jedediah.

Not the typical picture of racial tolerance. 

The subtext gets even more powerful when the second game rolls around. In it, Cole and Zeke travel to New Marais, another fictional stand-in, this time for New Orleans. New Marais is a place that is overrun by swamp monsters, soldiers with ice abilities, and a privatized military force known as The Militia. The Militia is a gang of Chrisitan extremists who vow to rid their city of the people that cause trouble, coded here as 'deviants' of which Cole Mcgrath is the main danger. To do this, there's a strict immigration ban that's been placed on the city, even refusing refugees from the crisis in Empire City, so Cole has to sneak into the city on a fishing boat.

Again, this is just an added difficulty to Cole's adventure that's meant to serve as a challenge to the player, but it takes on a new meaning if Cole were to look like the people who normally have to suffer extraneous circumstances to travel from one place to another. The people who get accused of being the poisonous M & M's hidden in a bag of candy. The Militia essentially is presented as the worst case scenario of an Alt-Right group, right down to the leader who looks like a hybrid of Steve Bannon and Richard Spencer.

This is his good side.

All of this requires no other changes to the story, the gameplay, and anything else that goes into making 'inFamous' the game that it is. Everything in the games can stay exactly the way it is, but the events and how you play the game would change dramatically if Cole were a different colour. It would make scenes like the one's where Cole is called 'The Demon of Empire City' chilling, and it would create a much more conscious atmosphere, that affected how certain decisions were made. As it stands, the morality system in 'inFamous' is a less nuanced than it could be and as I said, while Cole is a compelling character, his struggle would ring truer were he wearing a less represented face. It's a missed opportunity for a story that could have been truly reflective of the times we live in today.

The most intriguing choice I came across in the games was in 'inFamous 2'. In the game, you're introduced to two new characters, Lucy Kuo, an NSA agent tasked with helping Cole save the world, and Nix, a New Marais citizen out to get revenge for her city besieged. They become more or less avatars for the games good and bad paths and influence Cole like the devil and angel on his electric shoulders. There's a point in the game where you're set to rescue Kuo from being imprisoned by the Militia. Zeke suggests freeing the police who have been rounded up and jailed by the Militia, give them weapons, so they can aid you in the rescue. This sparks an intense reaction from Nix. She instead suggests filling up a van with explosives and ramming it into the base where Kuo is being held, possibly injuring innocents in the process. Zeke is considered "Good" Nix is labeled "Bad"

At the time that I first played it back in the olden days of 2011, the choice was clear. Free the police, arm them up, and you have an army to help you in your quest. Now? The idea of putting a gun in the hands of a cop is far less inviting. It's much easier to understand Nix's vehement disapproval of Zeke's plan, especially considering she looks like this:

You choose Zeke's plan, Cole will remark at how crazy Nix is. How her destructive nature is completely out of the realm of reasonability. Cole says this because he would have had a different experience with the police than Nix. It's not hard to imagine why she's so opposed to the idea.

That right there is a small example of how important it is for characters in video games, movies, television shows, and all mediums of narrative to be diverse. The stories that are told can be drastically different if the perspectives are changed. They can become richer, more compelling, and important as they'd be giving a voice to those who are so often silenced. Not to mention, 'inFamous' has a character whose perspective has been explored ad nauseam. The idea is not that 'inFamous' would be a better game were Cole a person of colour. Rather that 'inFamous' would take on a much deeper, more complex role, sticking with you with a story that stands out amidst the crowd of generic white protagonists.

It's not all bad. Much has changed since Cole's last adventure in 2011. The 'inFamous' series itself continued on without him and embraced the path of inclusiveness when 'inFamous Second Son' featured a Native American protagonist. The game didn't just throw in that backstory for nothing either. It was instrumental to his character's motivations and was reflected in how his arc developed. He was played by Troy Baker who is very much not Native American but, baby steps. 

At E3 this year alone, 'Wolfenstein: The New Colossus' features a black female character, and 'Marvel's Spider-Man' teases the inclusion of Miles Morales. Even 'Beyond Good and Evil 2' featured a black female character. The throughline though, is none of these characters seem to take the centre stage. There's nothing wrong with a story that features a white protagonist, there's just extremely untapped potential at telling a story from an unexplored perspective, that also might just mean the world to a player that's less represented. 

Read More

King Character: Why Nothing Else Matters When The Curtains Are Drawn

A lot of times I wonder how movies get made. They're tremendous undertakings. A movie with a budget of about $100 million dollars takes about a year to get made, give or take a few months. In that time you have to work out actor schedules, filming locations. Just a myriad of dates and figures that need to be ironed out, and that's not even taking into account quality. All that work could go into making an abysmal film. Granted, it can feel hollow critiquing products that have such an immense workforce behind them, but what are you gonna do.

I did not like this one part of this immense process with a thousand moving parts, therefore movie is bad!

So that's movies. Millions of dollars go into them. Sometimes they're as entertaining as watching someone watch grass grow. That said, of all the elements movies need to perfect, there is one which I feel is the most important. In my mind, a movie can have stunning visuals, an incredible story, rich quip-filled dialogue, and the most impressive stunt work this side of the tallest city in Dubai.

None of that means jack if it doesn't have character.

Now I should preface by saying I'm not writing this from any sort of objective standpoint. I'm not talking about how successful a movie will be critically or commercially once it gets this one element right. Plenty of times a movie has really strong characters, but the movie gets torn to shreds because of an otherwise poorly developed element. For me personally, I'm more than willing to forgive a movie for what it drops the ball on as long as its characters feel fleshed out and relatable.

So why character? Well, if I think about my favourite movies, the thing I go back to is how I related to the character. 'Scent of A Woman' is a story of a blind miserable old man who decides to take a tour of life's pleasures, enjoying each and every one of them, until finally, he'll take his own life. That's a great story, but it's secondary to the character of Frank Slade. When the pivotal moment of that movie comes, and you're wondering if he'll actually go through with it, the tension can't exist unless you care about Frank. You have to feel how the events of the movie have affected him. Also it doesn't hurt to have Al Pacino play the guy.

He is just as ridiculous as this photo in the movie. 

This applies to modern movies as well. This year alone my favourite cinema experiences have relied on character more than anything else. 'Logan' is a sublime experience. It's a crushing look at the end of the life of an immortal man. Everything that works in that movie is an extension of that character study. The action is propelled by Logan's increased frustration, and every time Dafne Keen's Laura takes a life, the toll of that is felt tremendously. Bodies are disposed of in Logan en masse, but with a weight and resonance unlike any superhero film before it.

Without character, a movie loses me. 'Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice' is a beautiful film. It's sharp and vivid, and a fantastic exercise in cinematography. What it also has is an overly convoluted plot, and gaps in logic that the viewer has to take building size bounds to try and figure out. It definitely has a messy story and seems to operate solely to get its title characters to duke out their aggressions. There's no why to it, and as a viewer, you're left frustrated.

Caring about the character as more than live action toys slammed against each other keeps the viewer from bemoaning the nitpicks. 

All of that gets fixed if you understand the characters of Batman and Superman. If you understand who they are, what defines them, then their actions have a sense of purpose, and then the events of the movie unfold organically. 'Power Rangers' was a movie that had a lot of the same issues as Batman v Superman, but because so much of the movie was spent developing and understanding what made their characters tick, I could forgive so many of the things that were wrong with it. I was given people to root for, with individual stories to follow.

Another big example comes with the recent 'Pirates of the Caribbean' movie. In it, Captain Jack Sparrow galavants his way from one mishap to the next, all in the name of his own self-preservation. Often times wasted. As entertaining as that was 14 years ago, the good Captain has suffered a distinct lack of any growth, rendering his actions kind of inert. What do I care if Captain Jack lives or dies if there's nothing there to care about?

The idea of another batch of Pirates movies severely exhausts me.

Mad Max Fury Road is a simple story, but I cared about Furiosa's journey. Godzilla was a tremendous sight to behold, yet every single human character is so banal, that I fall asleep when I try to watch it. The Force Awakens felt like a safe, retread of the same story for the third time, but the characters had were memorable. Every Marvel movie has its flaws and they're almost beat for beat the same movie at times, but you remember Captain America jumping onto a grenade as a scrawny kid, Iron Man driving the missile up into space with no hope of return. Each of those moments is borne out of the filmmakers having a good sense of who their characters are and what makes them tick. 

Just this past week, 'Wonder Woman' has enthralled audiences around the world. It's being heralded as one of the best superhero films to come out in recent memory. A breath of fresh air. It also has dodgy special effects, an overly convoluted ending, and takes no risks when it comes to how it presents its story. Absolutely none of that matters to the majority of audiences because the character of Wonder Woman was so well developed, and presented with an earnestness that often gets lost in the process.

More like this, pretty please.

I could list off examples all the live long day, but the point is, without characters to care about, a movie loses me very quickly. Even better, if a movie has nothing else going for it, if it has character, I might end up loving it. The reason I watch movies is to be transported to another world and experience a story that explores things I can't fathom. That's useless unless I can relate to it, and I can't do that without a character. 

Read More

Most Snubbed: 7 Movies I Thought Deserved Oscars (2017 Edition)

It's time once again for the Oscars! In a historic year too. 'La La Land' has a whopping 14 nominations. Dev Patel is making genuinely great movies again. Amy Adams...wasn't nominated? Well one thing that's not historic is there are a few movies that didn't get the attention they deserved. Granted, this list was harder to curate this year because I actually think the nominations are pretty solid. Still, there are a few that I'd like to see get that golden statue. Most of these are long shots but hey, a kid can dream.

Like many people, I had no idea who Chris Pine was before Kirk. Back then, he seemed like a perfectly good actor. Maybe he'd get a superhero role, and that'd be the end of it. In the years since I didn't exactly see him breaking that mold, but he was always solid. He always seemed like he could maybe do something great. Then Hell or High Water happened. By far, his best performance and a real show of his strengths. I was hoping he'd at least get a nomination this year.

It's also the dirtiest this pretty boy has ever looked, but that's an achievement for costume design.

I think I've been in love with Amy Adams since 'Enchanted'. How could I not be. She played a real life princess. That love has only grown since then as Adams has delivered again and again with several incredible performances. I loved her in 'The Fighter', 'American Hustle', 'Doubt', 'Julie & Julia'. The list goes on and on. I also loved her in one of my favourites of last year, 'Arrival'. This year is a tough category for actresses, but I'd like to see Amy Adams immortalized for her work, and finally get the award she deserves.

I can't think of anyone better suited to be the ambassador of earth. 

You can tell I kinda liked this movie right? As with Chris Pine, I thought Ben Foster could've easily snagged this award. In fact, in making this list I realized I couldn't put up one without the other. They play off each other so well. Foster plays a raw volatile force of nature, that his brother, played by Chris Pine, must keep in check. Their roles are so dependent on that relationship, and they both deliver in spades. To see them both accept awards for that would've been perfect in my eyes.

If there were an award for best onscreen duo it'd be these two. 

I wish Queen of Katwe hadn't been so forgotten. It sort of came and went. It's solid, moving, and features yet another fantastic performance by Lupita. A nomination would've solidified the movies place in history, and maybe garnered it the attention it deserved. Beyond that, N'yongo's role as the mother of a chess wiz is an important one. One that doesn't shy away from the harsh realities of living in poverty as a woman. For all the movies that came out last year, Queen of Katwe stuck with me, because it not only showed powerful women but also powerful women of colour. Breaking perceptions of themselves, without the aid of a white saviour.

One of the greatest living actresses. 

This was probably the most pleasant surprise of 2016. I absolutely adore 10 Cloverfield Lane. A movie that is delightfully tense, grimy and severely unnerving. Its one of the only times I would use the term Hitchcockian. It has all the classic suspense elements. It's claustrophobic. Mysterious. Damn if the cast isn't pitch perfect as well. Not for nothing but Damian Chazelle, director of 'La La Land' worked on the script for this film which was brought together by Dan Trachtenberg. Watching '10 Cloverfield Lane' in a dark theatre by myself was absolutely one of my favourite experiences of 2016. Definitely worth a nomination.

I was very much afraid of John Goodman after watching this movie.

Again, one of my favourite movie-going experiences last year. The Nice Guys is just a complete thrill. Shane Black delivers on his classic style of irreverent humour with enough profanity to make Tony Montana blush. Ryan Gosling and Russell Crowe are excellent and playing almost parodies of themselves. It wasn't just another action movie. The movie felt fresh. It dispenses with so many tropes that bog down movies of this type. It was brimming with creativity. I never expected it to get an award, but damn that would have made me smile.

Shane Black has yet to disappoint me. Even his worst movies have moments of brilliance. 

Not one of my favourite movie-going experiences last year. My absolute favourite. 'Kubo and the Two Strings' is an absolutely astonishing movie. It's a story of a young boy caring for his disabled mother. Told through an epic adventure story, as Kubo comes to terms with the responsibility that rests on his young shoulders. It's about growing up and the difficulties that come with it. I wish more movies were like Kubo. Movies that felt like they came from a place of truth. It's easy to be cynical about film. Show business is a business after all. Watching Kubo was a reminder of what movies were for. Aside from all that, it looks phenomenal. It's an incredibly beautiful film which isn't afraid of colour, and the best stop-motion animation I've ever seen. If I could see one movie win the best picture award this year, it would be 'Kubo and the Two Strings'.

If you must blink, do it now. 

As I said, it wasn't a bad selection for this year's Academy Awards. This was a year where I actually saw plenty of the movies that were nominated. Denzel will probably get another one for Fences, but Dev Patel's turn in Lion is nothing to sneeze at. If it goes to Gosling, they should burn the building to the ground. Same goes for if Viola Davis doesn't get her trophy. Unlike last year, I'm more concerned with the ones that were nominated that the ones that weren't. That's a good sign.

Read More

"Chick Flick" Is A Stupid Name.

Today is Valentine's Day. Unless you read this on a day which is not Valentine's Day. Such is the trouble with holiday related productions. Sort of loses its relevance after a 24 hour period. Regardless, every Valentine's Day inevitably is met with movie releases that intend to capitalize on the day of love. Every couple looking for something to do will flock to the cinema. Guys will be dragged by their girlfriends, and sit through 90 minutes of the mushy stuff that they actively avoid since they'd much rather be watching an action movie.

Just wait for the moment where there's a conflict that could be solved by 5 minutes of talking. Not much left to go after that.

Except that's a complete fiction.

Movie studios green light projects based on who they think it'll appeal to. Different demographics get different movies. In the eyes of executives, women get Romantic Comedies, men get Superhero movies. It's the kind of thinking that kept Black Widow toys from being made for Age Of Ultron. As far as Disney's concerned, they already have enough princesses to sell, so leave the capes for the boys. But using Superhero movies as the example, there's one thing that ties each of those things together. They're almost all love stories.

Superman loves Lois Lane. Wolverine loves Jean Grey. The most compelling part of the Andrew Garfield Spider-Man films is the magnetic relationship between Peter and Gwen. Captain America spends most of his first film going gaga over Peggy Carter, and the last moment of the film is the man out of time with all the pain and sorrow in the world saying "I had a date." But sure, movies about love are just for girls.

Tell me you didn't bawl your eyes out when that plane went in the ice.
You're a goddamn liar.

Pretty much every movie that's aimed towards men has some form of a love story in it. John Wick is a man solely motivated by how much he loves his wife. You don't shoot your way through a nightclub unless it's for a good reason. As much as these movies feature love stories, they have to hide it. Obviously, everyone loves, love, but any movie that wears its heart on its sleeve is for women. Men's love stories are hidden beneath a barrage of explosions and cheap plots.

Now, I'm sure no one goes to those films for the love stories, but it's definitely a part of what makes them resonate. Maybe it is just something thrown in by the studio in a misguided attempt to attract female viewership, but it ends up being more than that. These stories give characters dimension and make them feel like real people. Reason being, everyone can relate to a love story, because even the most cynical of us wants to believe in love.

I know this doesn't exactly fit but I've got a girlfriend who likes Ed Sheeran. Look I'm not above pandering to an audience okay?

That's why "Chick Flick" is a stupid name. It's because delegating a type of story to one part of society is myopic. The world would be better off if we didn't have to uphold these artificial fences. Men shouldn't be ashamed to admit they like watching movies where two people meet, they laugh, they love, and then break up because of a lack of communication, only to get back together right before the credits. Why yes that is the plot of 'Deadpool'.

Possibly the most disgusting proposal in a movie.

Studios think they understand what people want to see. It's about time there was a change in that. Stereotyping may be good for business, but it's not good for us. We should have women in superhero movies. We shouldn't be ashamed to admit when we like something. When we do that we're taking cues from the people who wanted to make Sam Worthington a major star.

So this Valentine's Day, let's drop the pretenses and the outdated sectionalism. Let's throw on whatever we want to watch, and suggest the movies that aren't "supposed" to be for us. Once we let go of all that baggage, we can actually enjoy the movies we want to watch, without pressure or shame. If that ain't love then I don't know what is.

That's my article, and this is my podcast. Both are about love:

Read More

5 Times The Same Movie Came Out Twice In The Same Year

Right now the number one movie this year is a superhero film that pitted a morally righteous character in a red and blue suit against a powerless billionaire in an enhanced suit of armor. If that plot sounds familiar to you in anyway, it's because it's the exact same plot of the prior superflick, 'Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice'. Anyone who's seen both films can say that the similarities between the film are more than superficial. The plots both centre around an issue of superhuman responsibility and how dangerous it would be to leave such powerful people unsupervised.

This isn't a new phenomenon, in fact, there's a whole article on wikipedia about it. Every other year the movie going public has to suffer a sense of deja vu as different studios attempt to capitalize on the same market. Interestingly though, for all the similarities with the subject matter, the movies that come out are drastically different in tone, and more importantly quality. Here's a list of a few that I could remember of the top of my head.

It's like a color gradient but for tone. 

2012 was a packed year for movies. The Avengers assembled, The Hunger Games began, and Christopher Nolan's Dark Knight Trilogy was concluded. That didn't stop not one, but two live action snow white adaptations from being produced.

The lighter of the two was 'Mirror, Mirror'. With a stellar cast including Julia Roberts, Nathan Lane and Sean Bean, the film was more in line with the Disney classic than the Grimm fairy tale. 'Snow White and the Huntsman' on the other hand, went for a much grittier fantasy tale, akin to that of Lord of The Rings or Game of Thrones (despite Mirror Mirror actually casting Sean Bean who was in both). Both films received poor to mixed critical reception, but both fared pretty well at the box office, more than doubling their budgets. Seeing as Snow White and the Hunstman was granted a sequel (prequel?), I guess there was an audience for it?

  International Business Times

Maaaaaybe not.

Asteroid phobia was huge in the 90s.

This one has always been funny to me, because what you have is 'Deep Impact', a serious, gritty, emotional film, that focuses on humanity coming to terms with it's demise. It's a well thought out disaster movie, and it's got Morgan Freeman playing a black president. It kind of stings that every time there's a black president the world's gotta end but whatever.

And then you have Armageddon which is the most Michael Bay film that Michael Bay ever Michael Bayed. It's got Bruce Willis and his oil drilling, distinctly American crew, who get recruited to go up into space to stop an asteroid from hitting earth. It's filled with dumb moments like Bruce Willis chasing Ben Affleck for sleeping with his daughter, Steve Buscemi suffering space dementia, and my favourite moment, which is when Willis informs their recruiter Billy Bob Thornton, that their request for having saved the planet is that they don't ever want to pay taxes again, because they're just like you and me man. Who can't relate to that?

It's not better than 'Deep Impact' but if I'm picking one of the two to watch right now, I'll take the cheesy over the top 'Armageddon' over the morose 'Deep Impact'

It's a wonder the tagline for 'Friends With Benefits' isn't "And there are NO strings attached."

Full disclosure, I haven't exactly seen 'No Strings Attached' but both these casual sex comedies coming out in the same year, is doubly confusing considering both feature at least one of the cast from That 70's Show. Especially since they're cast members that were a couple in the show. Clearly these were just to fuel fan fiction flames.

What's interesting is that while 'No Strings Attached' has a 40% rotten tomatoes rating to 'Friends With Benefits' 70%, both films made near identical money, both clocking in at just under 150 million. Clearly there's a very specific audience for this type of film that is willing to see the same thing twice. Numbers don't lie people.

Hitchcock just looks mad that 'The Girl' exists.

This one is a damn shame because the better of the two is the one less seen. 'The Girl' was an HBO movie with Toby Jones as the infamous horror director, and the other had Hitchcock played by Anthony Hopkins. I'll be honest, of the two of those choices, Hopkins takes it, but when you watch the two films, it's clear 'The Girl' is a much better movie. Hitchcock is a bit confused as to what it's trying to be, while 'The Girl' is more confident and because it's made for HBO it didn't have to pull any punches, and is actually pretty disturbing at times.

Why it was decided to make 'Hitchcock' into a PG-13 film I'll never know. What audience below the age of 25 is gonna be jonesing to see a biopic about Alfred Hitchcock starring Anthony Hopkins and Helen Mirren?

Oh hey look it's Morgan Freeman again. 

Finally we have the infamous pairing of Olympus Has Fallen and White House Down. The year where the White House was attacked by two completely different directors. The thing is these movies aren't even different in tone. They both feature one man on a mission to save the president from inside the white house, with Die Hard-esque plot progression. Not only that, but the movies came out within a month of each other.

Like 'Snow White and the Huntsman', one of these movies got a sequel. 'White House Down' may have made 50 more million than, 'Olympus Has Fallen', but it was still followed by 'London Has Fallen' where it was revealed that the people behind the attack on the White House were out to destroy EVERY MAJOR LANDMARK. I'm assuming that's the plot, because I only watched the trailer. Nor did I see 'Olympus Has Fallen' or 'White House Down'.

I won't pretend that movies are made solely for their artistic merit. It's a business based on assuming what an audience wants, and then trying to sell it to them. When it's so clearly done for the sake of that business though, I get a bad vibe. I can't help but get that vibe when I see two movies that are pushing the same thing. That just says to me that it was probably rushed to beat the other movie from taking away that market. In which case, it doesn't sound like a good time for me at the movies, but it sure is fun to write about.

Thanks for reading. You can leave a comment below if you want, and here's an episode of the Take 4 podcast where we talked about disaster movies, which really and truly, a lot of these movies are.

Read More

Why Iron Man Siding With The Government In Civil War Makes Sense

With Captain America: Civil War approaching, the Marvel Cinematic Universe reaches its 13th installment and 3rd phase. The movie pits hero against hero as Captain America and Iron Man lead opposing factions over the right to hero freely.

Captain America and co. are of the strong opinion that super people and vigilantes should keep their methods to themselves and any oversight would be tantamount to the death of modern civilization as heroes would inevitably become hired guns, blasting away at the behest of the US government, which isn't to be trusted. If you've ever seen 'Watchmen' picture that scene where The Comedian and Dr. Manhattan are fighting in the Vietnam war, and that's essentially Caps worst fear.

Not a good time for the National Liberation Front

Iron Man on the other hand, believes that with the amount of chaos and destruction caused by superheroes already, it's time they were kept in check and allowed to do their acts of heroism, under sanction and with the guidelines set out by a third party.

If you're a fan of these films, Iron Man's position seems entirely out of character. Why would the man who worked so hard to get his weapons out of the hands of the government be so quick to relinquish his independence? After all, this is the guy who went from "Peace means having a bigger stick than the other guy, to "I want to protect the people I put in harm's way". Well as far as the movies are concerned, it actually makes a lot of sense.

In 'Iron Man', the place we see Tony Stark at the beginning of the movie is tonally different than where he is at the end. It starts with Tony as a weapons manufacturer who's made a habit out of defending what he does. He's happy to have maintained a fortune, and doesn't waste a minute thinking on the possible repercussions of his actions. This all changes when he's forced to face those repercussions and finds out that his company, unbeknownst to him, has been selling weapons to the enemies of America and causing the deaths of countless innocents.

Humbled and broken, Tony Stark becomes Iron Man

Clearly, the fruit of Tony's genius cannot be trusted in the hands of others. Tony builds a suit, and attempts to rid the world of his weapons and cuts ties with the government. He becomes a renegade and puts his mind to creating the tools for a better world while atoning for his sins as a blissfully ignorant arms dealer.

6 months after the events of the first film, 'Iron Man 2' sees Tony solidified as a man against government superveillance (see what I did there?). He's successfully proven that he can maintain his duty as Iron Man, and keep it as a weapon to be used only as he sees fit. Other countries try to imitate the Iron Man suit, but are unsuccessful as Tony seems to be the only one who can craft an armor of this stature.

Tony then has some serious egg on his face when Whiplash shows up, with his very own Arc Reaktor, the technology that Tony Stark believes could never be replicated. Suddenly there's cause for taking the Iron Man armour by force. This is why Tony gives Rhodey the suit that makes him War Machine. It's a way to keep the anxious military at bay, while also helping Tony sleep at night knowing his weapons are in the trusted hands of his friend.

Armor Bros!

This shows Tony that maybe his idea in the first Iron Man isn't as perfect as he might have thought. It's the first of many instances that tell him that he needs to make a few compromises if he wants to see the world protected. Still, even with giving Rhodey an armor, Tony still maintains his position that he's the only one capable of being the Iron Man.

The Avengers is actually where Tony Stark is at his most Tony Stark. See, the character at the end of the first Iron Man is still untested. Sure he has grand ideas about what it means to be Iron Man, and he has his code of conduct that he's unshaken in, but it's not until Iron Man 2 that he has that code tested. It's only after saving the day in Iron Man 2 that Tony proves that he's the best person to handle being the Iron Man, to keep the world safe as a one man army.

This is why he's such a dick in The Avengers. He's mostly a dick to Captain America because well, at the time Cap represents everything he hates and does it with a smile (Also there's the fact that Cap knew his Dad who didn't really care for Tony on the outside). Cap is establishment personified, but from an era that doesn't conduct itself in the way Tony objects to.

Tony hates the soured ideal of Captain America

But Tony coming to terms with being a team all in himself is broken down as the movie reaches its third act. Tony realises that the threat faced in 'Avengers' is not something he would've ever prepared for. Tony is a guy who always wants to have the tools he needs to blow away the corner he's backed into. When an infinite army comes through a portal in the sky, led by a mythical God who just stabbed his friend in the back, Tony understandably says "nope" and gives the reigns over to Cap.

So yeah, the man who hates the establishment with everything he is, just let the man who represents the establishment the power to call the shots. Of course at this point in the movie, Tony has more of a feel of who Steve Rogers is, but not by much. Tony realises that in this situation, he's powerless. No more so than when he has to fly a nuclear warhead into space, coming face to face with something he'd never thought to anticipate.

Okay so what does a man who needs to have an out for every situation do when faced with an impossible situation. He tries to find a way out of it. Iron Man 3 starts with a very bothered Tony Stark. He has nightmares about the events in Avengers and can't seem to stop building Iron Man suits. It's the most shaken the character has ever been because well, like I said, in Avengers, he'd thought he'd figured everything out, only for the universe to go, "nah buddy you still got some work to do"

When he's forced to face that problem it's understandably jarring, and because of that Tony doesn't ever want it to happen again. The risk is way too high. See normally if a person gets too secure with themselves, then life finds a way to show them what they need to work on. In Tony's case, people could die, specifically the people he cares about. Tony building the 32 suits is him trying his best to get back to form like he was in Avengers. Get back to being the one man army.

A little more literally this time around.

By the end of the movie, Tony realises that, with all the suits mapped out for every eventuality in the world, he still couldn't stop danger before it started. He still had to be reactive, never proactive. It even got to the point where the woman he loved fell to her certain death*. Tony decides to blow up his suits, realizing that he can't be a one man army. Maybe he could've been before the world decided to become Marvel-ous, but when faced with such impossible situations, the old ways aren't enough.

Because he's too slow. Tony tries to come up with suits that are each suited for different situations, but of course that's impractical because what if the situation changes? What if the situation isn't something he could have precedented? What Tony needs to be is not just a man in a machine, he needs to BE a machine. Constantly thinking and evolving so that he is ALWAYS prepared, and has his arsenal at his disposal. Always finding a way in situations that were impossible to predict.

Tony says "Well if I can't be a machine..."

Yes, when faced with the problem of saving the world Tony realises that the weak link is himself. So therefore, Tony decides to take himself out of the equation. Building Ultron is a way for Tony to keep the world protected in a better, smarter way, and also, protect himself.

After the first Iron Man, Tony's endeavours had something of a suicidal notion to them. This is not to say that Tony does what he does hoping that one day he'll bite the bullet, but what I mean is, Tony becoming Iron Man was atonement for his sins. With that in mind, Tony thinks that he deserves every bit of pain that comes his way. Anytime his life is in danger wouldn't matter to him since in his mind, he put someone else's life in danger too. By the time Age of Ultron comes around, he finds a way to forgive himself ever so slightly, and also realises that even if his life doesn't matter to him, it matters to the people around him.

So he doesn't want to be Iron Man any more. He wants Ultron to take his place and even do a better job than he ever did. Make none of the mistakes facilitated by human error. Ultron is it. It's everything that the character of Tony Stark has been working towards since Iron Man. He's finally found a way to get back to the level of closure he felt at the beginning of the first Avengers. The world would finally, be in safe hands again with the real one man army.

Nope.

As Obadiah Stane says in the first Iron Man film, trying to rid the world of weapons, he gave it it's best one ever. Ultron turns out to be less of a deterrent for threats and more of a direct threat himself. When the ultimate culmination of your entire ideology becomes the antithesis of that ideology, you start to question that ideology.

Prior to Age of Ultron, Tony was like Rocky Balboa. He took hit after hit after hit and kept on getting back up. Trying to find a better way. Whiplash makes him look bad? He gives Rhodey an armor and gets to keep working on his suits. Aliens attack? He starts working on suits for every situation. Situations he couldn't prepare for come up? He builds a robot that will evolve faster than he ever could. By the end of Age of Ultron, Tony is more like John Hammond at the end of Jurassic Park, realising that he never had control of the park in the first place.

Audiences are right to think that Iron Man's position in Civil War seems out of place with his character. That's because by the time Civil War comes around, it won't be the same character. Everything that character stood for, the independence necessary to keep the mission pure, to make sure that the threats that were out there were provided against, that all went up in flames with Ultron.

Tony realises that his dream of being the one man army, the man to protect the people he put in harm's way isn't possible. He can't do it on his own. Of course, the character of Tony Stark has an ego the size of the Hulk, so naturally, if he can't do it, no one else can. His best option for a world kept safe is the government he so mistrusts.

At this point he's desperate. He doesn't see a way out anymore and that's not easy for Tony Stark. The government is the last resort after everything else failed. It's not like it was before though. He's not relinquishing weapons for the government to use as they see fit, he's simply putting the responsibility of protecting the world in their hands. The Avengers and all the other characters in Civil War aren't so malleable as a few missiles and bombs, so, Tony doesn't think it'll turn out like last time. Plus he's smarter now, he won't make the same mistakes again.

Right?

Thanks for reading and if you liked this, or not, please leave a comment telling me your thoughts. I also have a podcast about movies that you can listen to. Our episode on Iron Man movies will be coming out soon, so please keep a look out for that. The most recent episode was on Disney Movies, which you can listen to here:

Pages: 1 2 3 4

Read More

Impertinent Perception #4: Your Favourite IS Good Enough

When I was younger, I always found myself on the outskirts of regular social gatherings. So many of my friends seemed to be in on something that I simply wasn't. It was almost as if I were speaking another language and no matter my attempts, I couldn't decipher the code. I've realised since that everyone feels that way at some point, and at varying degrees of intensity, but they still feel it. The hope is that you eventually get comfortable enough in your own skin that you don't really need to decipher the code. Pretty soon after that, you relax and speaking the language gets a little easier. That's the idea anyway.

For a person who writes a blog about movies, it was actually film and other entertainment that was the hardest to relate to. So many people my age were into things that I completely did not get. Try having a conversation about 'The Godfather' with someone who just got back from seeing 'Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen' 3 times. When I was listening to Bob Dylan, they were rocking Lil Wayne. Even contemporary things I couldn't find others who I could relate to. While I was getting 'Lost' others were 'Keeping Up With The Kardashians'. Of course, that's not to say any of those things, were inferior to my choices. 

That's what's really at the heart of this article. Last week Sunday the Oscars were on, and while I watch every year for the ceremony, the host and the antics of hilariously unprepared award presenters, I don't hold 'Academy Awards' to a particularly high regard. The name alone inspires absolute credulity. Why would you care about what an "academy" says about a movie? That's like having someone dictate what's worth your attention and favour. Yes, I write movie reviews which give my take on a movie, but it's entirely my take, never to be taken as a dictation. My favourite thing in the world is to hear someone else's opinion on something. It's incredibly more valuable to me since it's something I don't already have. 

So many people were outraged at the nominations alone when they were announced in January, and of those nominations, so many were outraged at the eventual winners. That outrage comes from the innate response that people have when they feel that their view is discounted. I call this blog Impertinent Perceptions because I know that in the larger scheme of things, my view isn't important to many people, but it is mine, and I'm proud of it. Your opinions don't have to matter to other people, and you shouldn't think it has less value because it fails to receive external recognition.

There's an exclusivist mentality when it comes to entertainment, largely because, everyone wants to be in on something. I did, but at a certain point, I realised that it was okay to like the things that I liked. In this age of mass communication it's easier to find people that liked them as well.  I noticed that there was even something special about liking this thing that no one knew about. Not from a sense of hipster superiority, but because I had something I could share with others. Sure they might look at me weird if I started talking about the new strange thing they'd never heard of, but at the end of the day, I wasn't bothered if they didn't get it. So I stopped being bothered when I didn't get their stuff. 

What I'm saying is, there's no grand council that decrees group A of movies as good and group B of movies as bad. Everything subjective will always be more valuable than a false objective. If you like that thing you like, then go ahead and like it. Chances are they're making a movie about it one day. Then when other people start liking it, try not to be a tool and act like you're better than them for knowing about it first. That just perpetuates the behaviour and only creates a situation for insecurity and inferiority. The best way to go about it is to be secure in the things you like, while still being open to new things around the corner, and allowing others the chance to do the same to you. In my judgement anyway.

Thanks for reading and if you liked this article, or hated it, you can leave me a comment. I also did a podcast this week where we discussed those pesky academy awards and showed how very wrong our choices were, and you can listen to that here:

Read More

Most Snubbed: 7 Movies I Thought Deserved Oscars

The Oscars are tonight, or last night, or last year. Whenever you're reading this, the Oscars happened. No matter what the outcome, it can't be denied that like every year, there are some things in it that just don't belong. This year however, I'm writing a post about it, because why am I gonna be studying when I could obsess over movies I have no stake in. To keep things simple, I'll put my picks for a just few of the categories because to be honest, I'm not really sure how to judge sound mixing. And I'm not sure I want to. Even though that year that Harry Potter lost to 'The Iron Lady' for best make up still stings.

This is not something I was expecting. In the last few years Johnny Depp had become a parody of himself who couldn't even be saved by his relationship with long time director/partner Tim Burton. He had played zany character after zany character, each more annoying than the last. Enter 'Black Mass' where Johnny Depp shows you just how good he can be, and becoming a character that's just as freaky, but in a way that disturbs, not delights.

Watch the movie and you'll understand why this picture still creeps me out. Original review here

Emily Blunt is a superstar. What I mean by that is, she's the kind of actor that immediately gives the film an air of credibility about it. She also has such versatility that she pretty much appeals to anyone for a myriad of roles. Her performance as Kate Macer, a character who was essentially Ethan Hawke in Training Day except under way worse conditions, was not only chilling for the more broader moments, but it had a subtlety to it that requires real acting chops. It's a wonder that she hasn't actually been nominated before this.

She really makes a good movie great. Original review here

It's difficult to actually pick one out of the group from 'Straight Outta Compton', simply because I'm not exactly sure how to discern a lead from a support in this ensemble cast. Because the narrative follows Corey Hawkins' Dr. Dre the most, I give this one to Jason Mitchell as Eazy-E as a supporting actor. The reason Mitchell gets the award over O'Shea Jackson Jr. who might as well have been young time travelling Ice Cube, is because Mitchell gave the most heart in his performance, as the script takes his character through the toughest moments in this raw, hard hitting biopic.

Jason Mitchell really stands out as Eazy-E. Easily. (Joke credit: Nicanor Charles Gordon) Original review here

The Rocky franchise is known for many things, but one thing that it couldn't have done without is the character of Adrian. Adrian was Rocky's rock and he couldn't be the champ without her. So it's a testament to Thompson's performance that the relationship between Bianca and Adonis far outweighs that of Rocky and Adrian. Tessa's character is well developed and has more than enough for her own narrative, but aside from that Tessa's performance is so immersive that she steals every scene she's in.

I don't care for spin offs, but a series about a hearing impaired musician from the mean streets of philly? I'd watch that in a heartbeat. Original review here

It's no secret that I'm an avid fan of 'The Walk'. I thought it was a once in a lifetime theatre experience when Philippe first steps out onto that wire between the twin towers. I of course, owe that moment to Robert Zemeckis, and his creative team who was able to utilise 3D technology in the most immersive fashion since Avatar. Not only is it a visual spectacle, but it's a script that is hopeful, inspirational, filled with whimsy, whilst still maintaining a sense of maturity about it. It is the most Spielberg movie to come out this year, and that's a year in which Spielberg got behind the camera.

The opening scene in 'Flight' is topped by the closing scene in 'The Walk'. Original review here

Full disclosure, you can switch out this category with the one immediately above it. Since both McQuarrie and Zemeckis worked on the screenplay for their respective films it seems only fair to say their jobs were pretty similar. 'Rogue Nation' deserves the mention however, because just as 'The Walk' had that one once in a lifetime moment, this movie had several that were very close to that point. You can easily pick any out, but the opera house scene will forever remain in my memory, as an extremely inventive scene, that took an immense amount of precise skill to pull off.

The development of this shot alone is simply mesmerizing. Original review here 

Okay so this is a bit of a cheat considering that Fury Road is actually nominated for best picture, but I didn't say the Academy was completely wrong. Just mostly. It seems there are some things so good that not even the group that rejected 'Straight Outta Compton' could deny. 'Mad Max: Fury Road' is in fact one of those things. It's a movie I've watched several times since it's release and one that I think I will find myself regularly revisiting. It speaks to the baser parts of me that enjoy Ultrons and Hulks but also the high brow parts that enjoy performances with little to no dialogue. It does things that seem obvious yet at the same time inventive. It is truly the best picture of 2015, a year that was so very competitive.

Looking at the picture makes you want to rewatch it doesn't it. Original review here

That competition of course meant this list was not an easy one to curate. There were a number of films I thought fit for different categories. I thought 'Straight Outta Compton' would've worked for any one of these categories, except those involving actresses, and my soft spot for 'The Walk' almost made me give it the best picture, the best director, and every award involving a behind the scenes creative decision. I thought 'Southpaw' was a film with some questionable story beats but with top notch acting and even 'Star Wars' deserved some academy love.

Then of course there were so many movies I didn't get to see, like 'Spotlight', 'The Hateful Eight', 'Concussion', 'Slow West'. Movies that may very well replace some of my picks on this list. What I'm saying is, I recognize the utility in the Academy Awards. Many times I've looked to the winners or nominees of years past as a barometer from which to make a quality selection. However, if consistently running this blog has taught me anything it's that, yeah it's good to have a place to go, to know what's worth your time, but sometimes a movie is so good and gets little to no praise by the Academy. A movie isn't bad because they didn't pick it, it just...wasn't asked to the dance. You never know, it might be the prettiest person who wasn't even at the ball.

Thanks for reading and if you want to hear the predictions for movies that were ACTUALLY nominated, you can listen to Take 4 talk about that here. Be sure to check us next Sunday as we recap the Oscar ceremony and see if we were even close to right.
Also, here's a podcast about the movies that the Oscars apparently is gonna be ignoring from now on:

Read More