Fringe Thoughts

I caught up and watched the premiere and follow-up episode of Fringe. I'm going to go with a minority opinion and say that I like it. I'm not giddy with joy and dancing around the room or anything, but I found more to like than dislike in the first two go-rounds. Before I start talking about the show proper I'd like to comment on two things. First off, I can't quite decide what I think about the 3d text they use to "subtitle" locations. Basically what would normally be a 2d caption (such "Harvard University" or "Baghdad, Iraq") is placed in the scene and sometimes the camera does cutesy things like fly through an O. The word I keep wanting to use is "showy" but at the same time it's just text and thus almost understated. The most noticeable thing of course is that it's just like the Lost title sequence (although that's against a black background and in Fringe it's embedded in the scene). It's the worst example of getting beat across the brow with the J.J. Abrams connection. "This show is just like Lost! Love it! Love it!" The second thing I'd like to mention (or question) is the fact that the commercial breaks say "Fringe will return in 30/60/90 seconds". I assumed it was just a pilot thing, but the second episode did it as well. As a dyed-in-the-wool DVR user I love that. "60 seconds? OK that's 2 skips, plus probably three back-up skips" and beautiful, we're back to the show. But while I love it, I find it hard to believe the show's advertisers care for it. Indeed I had alway assumed that the fact that commercial breaks no-longer line up in nice 30-second chunks was an explicit attempt to make skipping commercials more difficult. But that's all fluff and nonsense. Let's get to the show itself! Most of the critiquing I read on the internet centered on awkward pacing or quasi-goofy science. The first is a fair criticism (but is true of many pilots, and probably of any pilot for a complex show) and the second is I think just goofy. I agree the pacing for the pilot was uneven. I'd even say it suffered from jamming too much stuff into a single episode (even though it was 1:35, instead of just one hour). For example, I think they could have not introduced the evil corporation concept in the pilot and that would have cut out a whole block of exposition. As for the science… I'm not sure what to do with that complaint. The science is plainly and obviously meant to be pulp. They bust out a honest-to-god Mad Scientist(tm) for crying out loud! I enjoyed the silly pulp nature of it all. I never got into the X-Files (blasphemy!), in large part because we were supposed to take it all seriously and I couldn't do it. Fringe is obviously taking on some of the same ground, but giving the his forgotten gothic laboratory with a rusty sensory deprivation tank and a cow changes the flavor. I think people who see it as typical Hollywood pseudo-science (or even worse the Star Trek:TNG technobabble) are missing the point. They aren't trying to be realistic about the science, they are evoking a particular style. I was a bit taken aback that both of the first two episodes were so horror-themed. There's a laundry list of "fringe science" technologies built into the title sequence, I hope it isn't all going to be jaws-dropping off and people having brain-surgery while conscious. I want to see the alternate dimensions and the nanotech and the psychokinesis, and hopefully the next episode won't have another bioweapon project gone amuck angle. I'm deeply suspicious of the "all of this is tied to one secret lab in the 70's and there are two scientists who worked there" plot, and I hope they downplay that over time. They have to walk a balance to keep the Mad Scientist(tm) a required element or he can't be a pain in the ass. On the other hand while I enjoy the whole "Mad Scientist(tm)" idea, he's also a caricature. In fact that's my strongest objection to the show thus far - everybody is straight out of central casting from the Dedicated Federal Agent(tm) to the Evil Corporate CEO(tm) to the Mysterious Taskmaster(tm) and the Misguided Boy Genius Gone Astray(tm). Again, I can forgive those in a pilot - you need to get enough characters sketched in to start the explosions; but if the characters don't evolve soon it will be a problem. Lost can support a few archetypes, but most of the characters are a little more nuanced. Fringe still has some work to do in that department. But I'm willing to watch a few more episodes before that becomes seriously annoying.
Read more

This is either shameless or brilliant

This just landed in my mailbox:
Friday, October 10 and Saturday, October 11, 2008. Live from the Anaheim Convention Center in Anaheim, California
DIRECTV Package Includes:
  • Over 16 hours of crystal-clear high-definition coverage
  • Exclusive interviews and commentary
  • Main stage presentations including opening ceremony
  • Select panels featuring Blizzard Entertainment developers
  • Tournament coverage and team highlights
  • BlizzCon 2008 World of Warcraft in-game polar bear mount with mounted, flag-waving murloc
- (details here) Yes, that's right. They are going to have BlizzCon broadcast on DirecTV Pay Per View this year. I'll admit, a tiny little part of me said "Actually that polar bear mount with the flag and the murloc is pretty sweet." Luckily that part of my brain isn't on speaking terms with the "should we spend $40 on PPV coverage of BlizzCon" deciding part of my brain.
Read more

Wow

Anyone who owns a Wii and doubts Nintendo's utter contempt for North America should go watch the Mario Sluggers promo on Wii (currently on the "Nintendo channel"), overdubbed by whatever AP didn't go to lunch on time the day the Smacker-encoded video arrived from Japan. Yeesh. The game itself might be fun, but fist-sized macro-blocks (not an exaggeration) and Buehler?-esque narration makes enthusiasm difficult. Which is peculiar, because even the Gamecube had better video codecs, and my assumption is that this video was built for Japan - where broadband is supposed to be faster than here.
Read more

Players Handbook

I can't decide if I think reviewing the Players Handbook is ridiculous or not. On the one hand, it's a book, and I read it. On the other hand, I've already nattered on about D&D recently and it's not like anyone reads the PHB as a work of literature. So maybe I'll cheat a little a bit and do a "review" but mix in a little 4th edition discussion. We'll see what happens. (Editing? We don't need no steekin' editing!) There's an obvious elephant in the 4th edition D&D room and oddly enough that's World of Warcraft. I guess this is some sort of circle of life thing where you'd have to expect that WoW only exists because my generation grew up with D&D and now it's time to for WoW to return the favor. The first time you see the influence in the PHB is when they start talking about character "roles". They've defined four: defender (cue Crow T. Robot saying "It's not a tank."), striker, controller, and leader. They explicitly describe how each role works in combat and it's a tag on each class - fighters are defenders, clerics are leaders and so forth. In fact they explicitly set out the "classic party" with a fighter (defender), cleric (leader), rogue (striker), and wizard (controller). I think this change is positive really. Putting this explicit focus up front means it's easy to see how each class works and you can see where it helps both a player understand their role and helped the designers really reinterpret each class and "focus the beam" as it were. The next thing a reader will notice is all of the powers. Everyone has a big stack of powers, no matter their class. Fighters have special attacks they use instead of the "basic melee" attack. Rogues have funky moves where they can move during the attack, or trip their target or force them to move or whatever. Wizards can cast a Magic Missile every round of combat if they want. The basic melee attack is pretty much something that somebody only does if it's because they were doing something else that includes a basic attack. Everything is broken up into "At-Will" powers (which can be used every round), "Encounter" powers (usable once per fight), and "Daily" powers (once per day, naturally). Somewhere around here a WoW player will envision a toolbar with powers and recharge timers on it. Again I think this is a great addition. Sure they didn't even bother to file the serial numbers off the WoW implementation, but that's OK. It cleans up so much stuff, it's worth it. Paladins Lay On Hands? That's a power. Wizard casting Acid Arrow? (Melf apparently got demoted. Poor out some CLW potion for the homies!) That's another power. Cleric's Turn Undead? Yep, a power. It makes everything in D&D work in one framework for really the first time ever. But the fact that all of these Powers now have the same structure means one finely honed game mechanic lets everyone do their stuff. Paladins still play completely different from Wizards, but it's not because they have unique game mechanics it's because they have different stats and powers. This means it's possible to grab a character sheet, skim it quickly and nod. You're ready to go and play the game. It doesn't require memorizing your class description so you know how all of your special exceptions work. You still have exceptions but they are all listed as Powers (well, or as Feats, but still. It's standardized.) So, I really like the new rules. From that perspective the PHB is a great success. It' not necessarily that much of a gripping read, but I've read much dryer and less readable gaming rulebooks. I don't think I'd recommend reading the whole thing straight through unless you plan on playing, but it's organized more as a reference than a linear read. I haven't actually played yet with the PHB (but we are Thursday! Huzzah!), but I have done some character creation/review work with it and it seems well laid out. I've already begun to be able to say "OK, for that we'll need to look at the XP chart, which is over here (flip to roughly the right spot)." If you're curious about 4e, you might find enough of interest in the PHB to own a copy. If you're playing or even thinking of playing it's definitely worth acquiring. There's a nice "gift set" you can get if you want the DMG and Monster Manual as well which comes with all three hardovers in a slipcover case.
Read more

Born Standing Up

Gah. I've been doing more book reading lately and thus the to-be-reviewed piles begins to loom. Let's talk about Born Standing Up, Steve Martin's memoir of his early stand-up career. I have to admit, I went into this book thinking it was something different than it was. I thought the focus was on comedy, how it works and why it works. There is a discussion about how his stand-up evolved and what Martin was thinking as created his style, but that's not the bulk of the book by any means. Furthermore, that's more of a historical note than a comedy How-To. It's a fascinating topic and his presentation is insightful, but it ends up being a documentary of how Steve Martin reacted to the comedy of that time. If you were going to do comedy today you'd have to react to the comedy of today – meaning you'd have to build off or react to Martin's work. From that perspective knowing his thought process back then isn't really practical information. As I said it's fascinating to read but I had gotten the impression that it there was practical information on creating funny material in the book, and I don't think that's accurate. I've always enjoyed Steve Martin's stand-up and sketch work, as well as his earlier movies. (I don't think I've seen anything he's done from in the last twenty years or so.) The book does a good job of presenting his start going all the way back to working in Disneyland when he was ten years old. I was only seven when The Jerk came out, so I've always seen his comedy after the fact, usually by many years. I think I was in college before I saw the "Wild And Crazy Guys" skits. Seeing how his comedy evolved and where he started is interesting and he tells it well in the book. I enjoyed the book. It's a pretty quick and light read. It's not what I thought it was going in but even as a historical note seeing how Martin played with comedy is interesting. I tend to think of that oddly literal and deadpan style Martin has just being fully formed. He does a good job of walking through how that evolved from the standard comedy routines he knew and presenting his style as a journey. If that sounds interesting to you then I think you'd enjoy reading this. It's more of a memoir and less of an analysis of comedy but it's a fine memoir, and chewing on the techniques presented can yield interesting insights. The glimpse of how Martin approached his craft is intriguing and I think worth the time to read.
Read more