LOTRO: Mordor and Beyond
Well, I waited till this afternoon before buying the Mordor expansion for LOTRO. Unlike the song, a day really didn’t make that much difference. In true and traditional Standing Stone Games style there were still problems, glitches and hassles to be found twenty-four hours on from the launch. In fact, there’s a hot fix to be deployed tomorrow to iron some of these out. Yet, in spite of all these minor niggles, tonight I found myself officially entering Mordor, ten years after the launch of LOTRO and eight years on from my subscribing to the game. I must admit as the game wrapped up the original story and I said cheer-bye to Frodo and the rest of The Fellowship of the Ring, I did feel a sense of great satisfaction as I reflected on what my character had achieved on behalf of the free peoples of Middle-earth. Why even Gandalf himself thanked me for my courage and effort. And then a message appeared in chat, stating “You’ve earned 5 LOTRO Points”. The irony wasn’t lost and I then went on to ponder exactly why I’ve spent years being a butler to all the NPCs I’ve met in LOTRO.
Well, I waited till this afternoon before buying the Mordor expansion for LOTRO. Unlike the song, a day really didn’t make that much difference. In true and traditional Standing Stone Games style there were still problems, glitches and hassles to be found twenty-four hours on from the launch. In fact, there’s a hot fix to be deployed tomorrow to iron some of these out. Yet, in spite of all these minor niggles, tonight I found myself officially entering Mordor, ten years after the launch of LOTRO and eight years on from my subscribing to the game. I must admit as the game wrapped up the original story and I said cheer-bye to Frodo and the rest of The Fellowship of the Ring, I did feel a sense of great satisfaction as I reflected on what my character had achieved on behalf of the free peoples of Middle-earth. Why even Gandalf himself thanked me for my courage and effort. And then a message appeared in chat, stating “You’ve earned 5 LOTRO Points”. The irony wasn’t lost and I then went on to ponder exactly why I’ve spent years being a butler to all the NPCs I’ve met in LOTRO.
Joking aside, I did enjoy the final interlude where you play once again as Gollum. Standing Stone Games did somewhat stretch the lore to accommodate the player being present at Sam and Frodo’s rescue. However, it does bring a sense of closure to the player. The subsequent epilogue in The Field of Cormallen set up the premise for the next Epic Book nicely. Overall, the cutscenes were well conceived and showed sufficient of the end of the story without over egging matters. The destruction of Barad-dûr, the demise of the Ring Wraiths and the rescue of Frodo and Sam by the eagles were functional. Once again, the developers work well within the technical restrictions of a decade old game engine. It’s just a shame that they couldn’t have created a more exciting launch trailer. The hastily cobbled together effort that was created using in-game footage was very lacklustre and was far from the most effective marketing tool.
At the time of writing there are still some technical glitches with the new character animations. There are clipping and tearing issues especially with certain types of hats and hair. It was very noticeable of my primary character. There were also delays to some players receiving the Aria of the Valar level boost. I’m sure these matters will be addressed but once again it would have been preferable if these had been sorted prior to launch. The current gaming culture of early access, releasing unfinished content and fixing on the fly is hardly edifying for the game community. It is a lazy, finance driven concept that doesn’t take in to account such matters as professionalism and public perception. The LOTRO player base has proven its tolerance time and time again over the years. I’m sure they would have accommodated a delay or better still a later launch date, if it meant that they got a more polished product.
I was fortunate enough to have received the Aria of the Valar when I logged in to the game today. Not everyone has been as lucky. I applied this boost to level 105 to my Dwarf Hunter. He was currently languishing at level 50 something and loitering in Lothlorien, having simply run through Moria. As I wasn’t relishing revisiting such areas as Mirkwood and Dunland and have always fancied an alternative character at level cap, it seemed like the sensible thing to do. The boost provides adequate gear, although none of it is designed for essences and three Third Age legendary items. Virtues are also increased but not to cap and you are also given a modest quantity of skills points. These are mainly the ones you would acquire if you played through the Epic Story. All things considered it’s not a bad service and allows you to go directly to Mordor adequately equipped. However, it is no more than that and shouldn’t be considered a “pay to win” item. After using the Aria of the Valar my Dwarf Hunter had a Physical Mastery rating of 70K.
So finally, the wait is over. LOTRO has now reached the end of the accepted canonical story and is now moving in to wholly original territory, narratively speaking. It feels like a very major step in the games overall life. Yet the more I look around at LOTRO, the reality is that nothing has significantly changed. The new Allegiance system is merely an adaptation of the existing reputation mechanic. Similarly, the Light of Earendil/Shadow of Mordor System appears to be a regional buff/debuff mechanic, not to different to from the old Radiance/Gloom system. Although the Mordor expansion offers LOTRO player a lot more content, it is still just “more of the same”. For many this will be an acceptable arrangement but I can’t help but think that it would be to the game’s advantage if they introduced something truly innovative. Sadly, I think the reality is that the game is simply too old to support anything too complex.
Although I have bought the Mordor expansion and am happy to play through the new quests, I will more than likely move on to pastures new, once I’ve hit the new level cap. Then it’s a question of waiting to see what the next update has to offer. For those that stay it is then a question of levelling alts and repeating content. Due to the social nature of the game and its community, it is the player created content and activities that binds people to this virtual Middle-earth. Standing Stone Games provides the theatre and the players craft their own experiences with their friends and kinships. Although this on paper seems like a very equitable arrangement, I can’t help but feel that it excuses Standing Stone Games from pushing themselves. Rather than taking a proactive role in creating new innovative content, they seem more like paternal “groundskeepers” charged with maintaining a fertile environment for others. Although it’s a valid position I wonder if its sustainable now LOTRO moves beyond Mordor. What do players want next and can the developers provide it for them?
The Return of the Contains Moderate Peril Podcast
Finally, after several months of diversions and distractions, I’ve managed to produce a new podcast. As I mentioned in a previous post, the Burton & Scrooge Podcast has been officially retired and for practical reasons of brand consolidation, the Contains Moderate Peril Podcast has been reinstated and will become the official show for this website. However, it should be noted that this latest episode is specifically designed to be a technical test meant to validate our RSS feed for submission to iTunes. Once this logistical issue has been dealt with and the podcast is accessible on all major platforms, then further episodes of the show will be scheduled for Autumn.
Finally, after several months of diversions and distractions, I’ve managed to produce a new podcast. As I mentioned in a previous post, the Burton & Scrooge Podcast has been officially retired and for practical reasons of brand consolidation, the Contains Moderate Peril Podcast has been reinstated and will become the official show for this website. However, it should be noted that this latest episode is specifically designed to be a technical test meant to validate our RSS feed for submission to iTunes. Once this logistical issue has been dealt with and the podcast is accessible on all major platforms, then further episodes of the show will be scheduled for Autumn.
Episode 174 of Contains Moderate Peril was originally recorded in late April this year and features guest appearances by long time contributors Brian and Sean. However, due to a multitude of real world matters, the show was temporarily shelved and it has only been in the last few days that I’ve been in a position to rectify the technical problems that beset the recording and produce a final edit. All things considered I am happy with the final results and think we have produced three talking points that are still interesting and relevant, despite the three-month gap.
Moving forward, there will be several changes to future episodes of podcast. First and foremost, my good friend Brian will be taking a sabbatical. Simply put, he has pressing real world matters to attend at present. I shall miss his input greatly having regularly recorded with him since 2010. However, change is an inevitability and is something that should be embraced, rather than rejected. So, I shall be continuing the show on my own and with the occasional guest from time to time. Like the website itself, I shall be broadening the content, so don’t be surprised to find a more diverse spectrum of topics explored. I certainly want to cover more film related material in future episodes as well as explore current news items.
Like the Contains Moderate Peril website, I have clear aspirations to grow the audience for the podcast. However, I have set myself some very specific criteria for this undertaking. If the show fails to meet them then I will cease producing the podcast. Although I enjoy creating material and engaging with listeners, there is ultimately an effort to result ratio to consider. Yet as I am currently taking advice with regard to the marketing and promotion of the Contains Moderate Peril Podcast, I remain confident that the show will find a wider audience than previously. I would urge those who enjoy the podcast to retweet links, leave favourable reviews on appropriate platforms and to recommend the show to your friends and colleagues. For the present, you will find the latest episode of Contains Moderate Peril on our "podcast" page, which can be accessed via the menu, above the logo at the top of this page or by clicking here.
Comic-Con Episode IV: A Fan's Hope (2011)
Documentaries about the fans and fandom often lack any impartiality and frequently have their own agenda, be it positive or negative. Looking at the names associated with Comic-Con Episode IV: A Fan's Hope, it’s fairly clear from the outset that this is not going to be an overtly critical undertaking. Director Morgan Spurlock follows five attendees during San Diego Comic-Con 2010 as they endeavour to fulfil their ambitions. The fans are immediately presented in a fairly positive way and as the documentary proceeds the viewer gets the opportunity to form their own opinion about the lifestyles, choices and philosophies. The documentary is also interspersed with talking heads from known genre luminaries such a Joss Wheedon, Kevin Smith and Stan Lee, who provide some interesting and quite frank views on Comic-Con as well as the wider fan scene.
Documentaries about the fans and fandom often lack any impartiality and frequently have their own agenda, be it positive or negative. Looking at the names associated with Comic-Con Episode IV: A Fan's Hope, it’s fairly clear from the outset that this is not going to be an overtly critical undertaking. Director Morgan Spurlock follows five attendees during San Diego Comic-Con 2010 as they endeavour to fulfil their ambitions. The fans are immediately presented in a fairly positive way and as the documentary proceeds the viewer gets the opportunity to form their own opinion about the lifestyles, choices and philosophies. The documentary is also interspersed with talking heads from known genre luminaries such a Joss Wheedon, Kevin Smith, Harry Knowles and Stan Lee, who provide some interesting and quite frank views on Comic-Con as well as the wider fan scene.
While Comic-Con Episode IV: A Fan's Hope does not wallow too much in the excesses of fandom it does not avoid all criticism. Joss Wheedon speaks of how what used to be an exclusive geek scene has now become a much broader event that is cynically exploited by the bean-counters. Veteran comic dealer Chuck, who is one of the focal points of the documentary, mourns the decline in the comic scene within the convention itself. There is a lot of truth in what he says and the commercial success of Comic-Con certainly has not been to the benefit of all. There are also some comments that do seem to validate some of common stereotypes about fans. There is talk of the "smell" of Comic-Con and some rather disdainful remarks about “counterfeit geeks” or “geek-for-a-week” tourists.
Out of the six or so subjects of the documentary, perhaps it is the aspirations of the two illustrators Eric and Skip that are best explored and offer the best drama. This is because they are seeking gainful employment and the chance to alter their lives as they hawk their portfolios between publishing houses. Their obsession is presented in a positive manner, where the adventures of the action figure collector seems far more self-indulgent. Costume designer Holly Conrad and her colleagues foray into the world of cosplay is both absorbing and honest. After spending a year creating their Mass Effect tribute costumes their dedication at times becomes a little manic. Tempers fray during cosplay rehearsals yet perhaps that is understandable considering the pressure and effort. As for the so called "lovers" and the alleged surprise proposal whilst at Comic-Con, it's the least edifying part of the documentary.
Although an enjoyable insight into a growing aspect of popular culture, Comic-Con Episode IV: A Fan's Hope is not a truly definitive or unbiased documentary and does not pretend to be one. It is fairly safe portal into the world of fandom for those on the outside, which removes some of the scenes rough edges, as well as being an ode to geekdom from those who have grown up with it. It does make a few points about the commercialisation of this particular phenomenon but doesn't offer any in-depth critique or solutions. Instead it settles for being a celebration of geek culture and focusing on the aspirational dreams of many of its participants, which is a worthy and positive spin on the proceedings.
Mad Max: Fury Road (2015)
There was a degree of collective hysteria among critics upon the release of George Miller's Mad Max: Fury Road. Phrases such as "genius" and "masterpiece" were being banded around willy nilly, mainly due to the overwhelming nature of the movie. Make no mistake, Mad Max: Fury Road is very much a case of film making turned up to eleven. The sheer sensory overload that one experiences over the two-hour running time makes for a jaw dropping experience. However, the movie does have a few minor flaws, which are more apparent upon second viewing, so perhaps some of the praise and superlatives that have been heaped upon the film need to be taken with a pinch of salt.
There was a degree of collective hysteria among critics upon the release of George Miller's Mad Max: Fury Road. Phrases such as "genius" and "masterpiece" were being banded around willy nilly, mainly due to the overwhelming nature of the movie. Make no mistake, Mad Max: Fury Road is very much a case of film making turned up to eleven. The sheer sensory overload that one experiences over the two-hour running time makes for a jaw dropping experience. However, the movie does have a few minor flaws, which are more apparent upon second viewing, so perhaps some of the praise and superlatives that have been heaped upon the film need to be taken with a pinch of salt.
That being said, if you can endure Mad Max: Fury Road and its exquisite assault upon your senses, it offers an extremely entertaining action movie with an interesting philosophical subtext. It also has something to say about gender politics, although this is not in any way a lecture. The films visual aesthetics and female casting does somewhat fly in the face of the alleged message. Therefore, one can consider the film’s deeper meaning as an optional extra. If you’re not in the market for sociopolitical subtexts, then ignore it and simply focus on the ongoing visual and the cinematic pandemonium. Please note that's two hours of continuous pandemonium. A potential chore for some.
The plot is simple and for those unfamiliar with the main character and the movies setting, there is a brief exposition at the start of the film that puts everything in perspective. The plot essentially is a continuous chase as Max escapes "The Citadel" with the five wives of local despot Immortan Joe (played by Hugh Keays-Byrne, Toecutter from the original movie). Tom Hardy handles the role of Max Rockatansky exceedingly well through his verbal and physical performance. However, this is a movie with minimal dialogue and often it is more about what is not said than what is. An exchanged glance or a particular stance speak volumes here. In many ways it is Furiosa, played by Charlize Theron, who drives the story with the force of her tangible screen presence.
Perhaps where director Geroge Miller excels the most is in the way he turns the complex action sequences from a mechanical process and elevates them into an elaborate form of visual opera. The production design, costumes and overall visual aesthetic of Mad Max: Fury Road goes beyond the term sumptuous. It is a physical experience. The nearest I can get to summarising it is that it's like being beaten around the head and shoulders with the collected works of Hieronymus Bosch, while being screamed at and set alight. When I saw this movie at the cinema, I needed a stiff drink when it ended because I genuinely felt that I had experienced everything that happened on screen. Even when viewed at home it is an immersive experience.
Be warned Mad Max: Fury Road is not your standard action movie, meticulously designed by a soulless committee and scrupulously edited to meet the requirements of the sanitised PG-13 rating. This is a raw and grotesque movie set in a neo-feudal world and it's a far from pleasant one. Yet despite the jarring nature of Goerge Miller's post-apocalyptic vision, it still has characters that you care for and there's a positive moral under current. Irrespective of its beautiful visual cacophony, Mad Max: Fury Road is ultimately a film about people and a very telling one at that. Something that is a rare commodity in contemporary Hollywood and something that many would not expect to find in this genre of movie.
Middle-earth and Non-Canonical Stories
Canon and lore are sacred cows to many fans. Any deviation from the clearly established is met with scepticism and on occasions outrage. It is the hill they are prepared to die, defending. In the past I have felt equally as strong about this matter as others but over the years I have become increasingly relaxed about such things. I guess once you realise that your childhood memories cannot be ruined, despite what some claim, then you cease to worry as much. If you do not like an adaptation, extrapolation or continuation beyond the canon of a particular IP, then you simply say, “it’s not for me” and move on. Not liking an idea or concept because it doesn’t conform your preconceptions and personal tastes does not give you the right to try and quash it. So overall, I don’t mind Tom Cruise being Jack Reacher. A female Doctor Who is fine with me. I even like the movie adaptation of Raise the Titanic.
Canon and lore are sacred cows to many fans. Any deviation from the clearly established is met with scepticism and on occasions outrage. It is the hill they are prepared to die, defending. In the past I have felt equally as strong about this matter as others but over the years I have become increasingly relaxed about such things. I guess once you realise that your childhood memories cannot be ruined, despite what some claim, then you cease to worry as much. If you do not like an adaptation, extrapolation or continuation beyond the canon of a particular IP, then you simply say, “it’s not for me” and move on. Not liking an idea or concept because it doesn’t conform your preconceptions and personal tastes does not give you the right to try and quash it. So overall, I don’t mind Tom Cruise being Jack Reacher. A female Doctor Who is fine with me. I even like the movie adaptation of Raise the Titanic.
However, as I mention, I wasn’t always this easy going. Tolkien’s body of work has long been something I enjoy and hold in high esteem. Thus, when both The Lord of the Rings: War in the North and Middle-earth: Shadow of Mordor were both announced respectively in 2011 and 2014, I was highly sceptical. Initial marketing showed a great deal of imagery devoid of any context. How could a Ranger be a Wraith and why were Eagles being used as mounts? Yet over time, as more information filtered through, it became clear that these were not total bastardisations of Tolkien’s work and I ended up buying and enjoying both games. In fact, I would go so far as to say that it was their innovative extrapolation of the lore that was one of the primary reasons I liked both titles so well.
What becomes apparent when playing The Lord of the Rings: War in the North and Middle-earth: Shadow of Mordor is that although they are derived from Tolkien’s work, they are more of a continuation of Peter Jackson’s cinematic adaptations. They certainly have the same detailed aesthetic and action focus. However, the stories of both games have creative plots that are based heavily in Middle-earth lore. The Lord of the Rings makes it clear in the Appendices that the War of the Ring was fought on multiple fronts. Both Gondor and Erebor were assailed by Sauron’s forces and Dol Guldur was destroyed by the Elves. So, the threat of third front hailing from Angmar, as seen in The Lord of the Rings: War in the North, is hardly a stretch either narratively or militarily. Middle-earth: Shadow of Mordor is equally as creative exploring the fate of Celebrimbor. It delves in to many aspects of Tolkien’s work from the Blue Wizards, Saruman’s hunt for the ring, as well as the ongoing wane of Gondor.
These games along with Standing Stone Games’ Lord of the Rings Online succeed as they journey beyond established canon, due to the love and affection their writers have for the source material. Rather than abandon established ideas, these games develop them and frequently fill in the grey areas of known lore. When one considers the magnitude of Sauron’s empire, surely he would have a much wider chain of command, other than just the Nazgûl. Hence, I do not balk at the Black Númenórean Lieutenant named Agandaûr, or the three Black Captains; the Hammer of Sauron, the Tower of Sauron and their leader, the Black Hand of Sauron. All make sense and play a specific role in the Dark Lord’s military hierarchy. Furthermore, we have seen in the source text, that Orcs and Uruks have personalities, as well as aspirations and agendas of their own. Thus, I found the character Ratbag in Middle-earth: Shadow of Mordor very plausible as he tries to do a deal with Talion to establish his power base. Also, having made some checks, I cannot find any definitive proof that Smaug was the last Dragon in Middle-earth. So I have no major prejudice against Draigoch or Úrgost.
Sadly, where I am happy to accommodate the aforementioned games non-canonical narratives, I feel that I have to draw a line with fan fiction. The standard of knowledge, research and writing seen in LOTRO, The Lord of the Rings: War in the North and Middle-earth: Shadow of Mordor simply isn’t present in grassroot fan generated content. Many fan writers just don’t have the necessary skills to forge a compelling narrative. It’s something you’ll see in many Star Wars and Star Trek fan films. They will often sport exemplary production values given the financial constraints but the dialogue is usually amateurish and embarrassing. Boundless love and enthusiasm are no substitute for genuine talent. Star Trek Continues transcends the traditional fan film label, due to the pedigree of those associated with the production. The Hunt for Gollum and Born of Hope don’t quite hit that level of professionalism, although they certainly raised the bar for Tolkien based fan movies.
It was recently announced that the three-way legal dispute between the Tolkien Estate, Middle-earth Enterprises and Warner Bros. has now been settled, which raises the question of further game development of Tolkien’s IP. Middle-earth: Shadow of War is due to be released on October and I am very interested as to where the story goes next. I see from trailers that Shelob is now part of the narrative, which is a bold move indeed. If this title is as equally successful as its predecessor then surely more games of this idiom will follow. Because of the specific terms of the licence, future material is somewhat tied to the scope just The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings. Yet because both of these books encompass a vast world of lore, much of which has never been fully explored or even fleshed out, we are potentially faced with a very creative opportunity. At present, due to the standard of what has already been released, I do not fear what may follow. Therefore, perhaps some fans should try and take a fresh look at this situation and revise their opinions regarding non-canonical stories.
Big Hero 6 (2014)
Big Hero 6 is a movie about loss and coming to terms with a bereavement. You'd think that Disney would run a mile from such a difficult subject, especially when you consider their core demographic, yet the subject is handled intelligently and sensitivity. There is a genuine sense of moral rectitude and conviction running throughout the story. It is a refreshing change to see a superhero driven plot that actually has a positive message as well as the requisite action scenes. Through years of accumulated experience Disney also ensure that the underlying themes are presented in a engaging and enjoyable manner. Big Hero 6 has a lot of laughs during its hundred minute plus running time.
Big Hero 6 is a movie about loss and coming to terms with a bereavement. You'd think that Disney would run a mile from such a difficult subject, especially when you consider their core demographic, yet the subject is handled intelligently and sensitivity. There is a genuine sense of moral rectitude and conviction running throughout the story. It is a refreshing change to see a superhero driven plot that actually has a positive message as well as the requisite action scenes. Through years of accumulated experience Disney also ensure that the underlying themes are presented in a engaging and enjoyable manner. Big Hero 6 has a lot of laughs during its hundred minute plus running time.
The story centres around electronic genius Hiro, who is suffering from depression after his brother is killed in a fire. When he inherits his brother's robotic project, Baymax, a "non-threatening" healthcare robot, he embarks on a journey to discover the truth about his death. After assembling his friends and "upgrading them" along with Baymax into a formidable fighting force, Hiro soon discovers that all is not a straightforward as it may seem and that in pursuing his own personal vengeance he is in fact, doing the opposite of what his brother would have wanted.
At the centre of Big Hero 6, is the character Baymax; the inflatable personal healthcare robot. With a minimum amount of dialogue voice actor Scott Adsitt brings him too life and embellishes him with some wonderful verbal idiosyncrasies. The simple design of Baymax is also an asset and the character is at his best when outside of his armour. Once again, we see the perennial theme of humans learning the nature of their own condition from a non-human source. Due to the emotional depth of the screenplay and the honesty of the performances, the message works and is genuinely moving. It also dovetails nicely into the story arc and set pieces.
There is a beautiful aesthetic to the city of San Fransokyo and I cannot remember the last time a saw a animated movie with such a fascinating production design. Several times whilst watching I found myself pausing the playback so I could examine the subtleties of the environment. The use of lighting is outstanding and it is clear where the $165 million production cost went. The blending of US and Japanese culture makes for a very striking visual landscape as many familiar landmarks and iconic buildings are given an inventive cross cultural makeover.
The more critical viewer may pick up on a few of the inherent weaknesses of Big Hero 6. Some of the supporting characters are not a well-developed as the lead. The central villain, although motivated by a specific plot device, still seems a little too arbitrary. But I can forgive these minor points as the story really is about Baymax, Hiro and their interdependency. Therein lies the movies strongest asset. Curiously I saw Big Hero 6 in the same week that I say Ex Machina, upon their release in 2014. The latter aslo deals with the issue of humans and AI coming to terms with each other. Although the two movies are radically different in tone and are pursuing different audiences, there are some very similar themes.
Moral Relativism in Popular Culture
Contemporary Western culture is far from perfect. Although major positive changes have been made with regard to social attitudes, equality and tolerance, there is still much work to be done. Privilege is still rife, be it financial, political or societal. Just to put one’s cards on the table right from the outset, I am a white, middle class, British male in his late forties. I do not feel in any way, shape or form marginalised. At present I am in one of the most advantageous social economic groups in the UK. That statement is devoid of any emotional connotation. It is simply a statement of fact and a means of providing some context for this post. Although I am acutely aware of discrimination, I have seldom personally experienced it. I mention this because this post is about moral relativism in popular culture and thus it is only fair that I define the prism through which I experience the world.
Contemporary Western culture is far from perfect. Although major positive changes have been made with regard to social attitudes, equality and tolerance, there is still much work to be done. Privilege is still rife, be it financial, political or societal. Just to put one’s cards on the table right from the outset, I am a white, middle class, British male in his late forties. I do not feel in any way, shape or form marginalised. At present I am in one of the most advantageous social economic groups in the UK. That statement is devoid of any emotional connotation. It is simply a statement of fact and a means of providing some context for this post. Although I am acutely aware of discrimination, I have seldom personally experienced it. I mention this because this post is about moral relativism in popular culture and thus it is only fair that I define the prism through which I experience the world.
For most of history, there have been hierarchies that have perpetuated discrimination for personal advantage. The church, nations states and all manner of other social institutions have done this in the past and continue to do so to varying degrees today. Therefore, it is foolish and factually inaccurate to try and avoid depicting this in any narrative medium. The quasi medieval world of Game of Thrones is therefore potentially justified in depicting the unpleasantness of its faux era. However, accuracy is one thing, exploitation is another. The latter often sites the former as a reason to justify "showing all". Sadly, authenticity is not really the real motivation here. It's purely a case of sex and violence sells. So, it is important to consider context. The harsh realities of slavery are shown without titillation in a movie such a 12 Years A Slave. Can the same be said about Mandingo?
There is a difficult line to tread here. Sometimes showing the stark reality of something abhorrent is the best way to make a point and to inform your audience or start a debate on a specific matter. On other occasions, depicting the specific details may not necessarily achieve this. I am of an age where I still remember the debate as to whether the rape scene in the 1988 movie The Accused actually needed to be shown, to make the film’s point about the treatment of women by the US judicial system of the time. On mature reflection, I believe that it did. Showing the assault puts a human face upon the crime and brings home its magnitude. However, can the same be said for “sensational” airport massacre scene in Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2? Its primary inclusion seems to be to titillate, rather than to make any wider dramatic point.
Some people have very strong moral and ethical world views. These may be driven by faith or politics and they are also shaped by the prevailing social ideas and customs of the times. For example I have very different views on some subjects compared to my eighty year old parents. They are very much products of their era, as I am of mine. As a result, I believe that it is simply illogical to deny the concept of moral relativism. There are some broad common concepts that most cultures can agree upon, such as murder and theft being wrong. However, there is not a globally accepted moral equivalent of the Beaufort Scale or Periodic Table. Hence, we see disparities between men and women’s status and rites in certain cultures and religions.
As a result of this diversity of opinion, it's pretty difficult to deal in absolutes (unless you are the tabloid press). Yet that doesn't stop people from trying. Some folk feel that there are limits on the exploration of specific subjects or that certain things are just taboo. You mustn’t joke about this, never be disrespectful about that, the list can get pretty long. I cautiously take the opposite view. I don't believe anything is truly out of bounds to explore in a democracy as long as it’s done within the confines of the law. However, one must question what ones motivations are for doing so and straying in to such minefields. For me, I use the litmus test that comedian Reginald D. Hunter suggested. "Was there hate in your heart" when the controversial statement in question was said. It may not be the most sophisticated of tools but I believe it is a strong starting point.
Because so much of our perception of the world around us is visual, humans have a strong tendency towards voyeurism; thus, many people find depictions of sex and violence alluring. This is not necessarily in a sinister or unwholesome sense but possibly more due to the cultural attraction of anything designated taboo. In the UK during the early eighties, the home video market was unregulated. Hysteria and panic lead to ill-conceived legislation, namely the 1984 Video Recordings Act, resulting in lot of movies gaining notoriety as they were removed from shelves. Let it suffice to say that this state of affairs made a lot of these titles essential viewing for many teenagers. It became a rite of passage to try to seek them out and endure them. In many respects this is no different from placing an age based embargo upon smoking, drinking and other sundry vices. There is some truth in the clichés regarding forbidden fruit. It's a curious thing that the appeal of such extreme material often wanes with age. Teenagers are still drawn to such movies such as The Human Centipede and A Serbian Film. I however recognise that there is no real benefit in seeing such unpleasant and extreme material. Subsequently I now have self-imposed limitations.
Gender is also an important factor within this debate. Reactions between the sexes can differ drastically on matters such as the depiction of sexual violence and the use of pejorative language. Sadly, most media based industries are far from a level playing field and there is often gender bias when dealing with certain material. Often it is this sort of content that proves most financially viable, regardless of its moral rectitude. It’s a matter that seems to be the bane of video games industry at present. Consider the debacles over Tracer’s sexuality in Overwatch and the aesthetics of female characters in Mass Effect: Andromeda. With regard to TV and specifically Game of Thrones which has often been criticised over its lurid content, I would love to have an accurate age and gender based break down of the viewing figures to determine what aspects of the show appealed to whom. Do you think there would be any major surprises? No, neither do I.
Following on from this, I think that we need to focus on the inherent duality of contemporary society with regard to current social issues. There is still a huge gulf between what people say in public when they’re conscious of maintaining an equitable moral and ethical position, as opposed to what they may think personally. We’re all guilty of this to a greater or lesser degree. Perhaps modern life exacerbates this phenomenon. For instance, most places of employment have clear policies regarding equality and discrimination these days and usually staff publicly endorse them. However, do all employees genuinely support such ideals or is it just expedient to do so? Until recently, the prevailing politically correct mindset has silenced certain quarters. In this post Trump, post Brexit world, a lot of people who previous kept their less inclusive views to themselves now are more comfortable sharing them publicly.
Then of course there is the fact that as a species we just seem to have a knack for failing to live up to our finer principles. Consider a commonly held notion such as not judging a person by their looks. Most people will strongly advocate such an ideal, again to possible project an acceptable public image. Yet despite this, so many of us still do the complete opposite, possibly because the ideal is contrary to our genetic imperatives. I'll freely admit that I regularly fail to live up to the standards that society and more importantly myself set. We live in a world where many of us embrace concepts and ideas in principle only; because we've realised that actually acting upon them requires effort, self-denial or having to step outside of our own personal comfort zone. Morality and ethics often go hand in hand with cognitive dissonance.
There is still much more to say and explore about moral relativism and its impact upon numerous social and ethical issues. It's interesting that many of these subjects manifest themselves in genres that are appealing to gamers, geeks and nerds. Games and comics still court controversy at times with the way they depict women or ethnic groups. The debate over the casting of the first female Doctor Who still rages on. The level of sexual content in shows as American Gods still causes tongues wagging. The BBC is about to embark upon its Gay Britannia season, celebrating 50th anniversary of The Sexual Offences Act 1967, which partially decriminalised gay sex. Expect outrage from specific newspapers. There are still mutterings from some fans over both the critical and financial success of Wonder woman at the box office. This is why we see push back as some see progressive ideals as threatening and don’t want them in their social spheres.
Context and the prevailing Zeitgeist have a bearing on representation of all subjects. Why should popular culture be any different? Therefore, we should not carte blanche deny the reality of moral relativism. However, we should not just use it as a “get out of jail” card to justify an “anything goes” mentality. Moral relativism is an academic debating tool and not a life defining philosophy. Just because something taboo can be shown on TV or a controversial subject used as a plot device, doesn’t mean that it automatically should. I would hope that such a decision was tempered by the application of a good many other criteria first. Because despite what some academics, critics and pundits may think, popular culture is not necessarily trivial by default. It is accessible to swathes of the population and can shape a great many opinions. As such it can be a very powerful medium. Whether it is a force for good or not, is down to us.
Standing Stone Games: Is the Honeymoon Over?
I was not that surprised when Standing Stone Games announced that their Mordor expansion for LOTRO would be released at the end of July, just weeks after several open beta tests. This is something the developers have done for a while, with all their major updates. One has to remember that despite a change of name, to core team developing LOTRO has not radically changed since they extricated themselves from Turbine. Something that SSG went out of their way to stress when they formally announced their move, last December. The press releases and interviews at the time focused on a sense of continuity and implied that SSG was now free from the corporate yolk of Warner Bros. and Turbine. It led to a great deal of optimism among LOTRO players and sparked a resurgence in the game. The fact that the MMO has now reached the end of Tolkien’s story and is about to embark upon its own original narrative has been well received. Yet LOTRO has always been regarded both by the faithful and by those outside, as a game that never quite lived up to its potential. Perhaps the release of Mordor would remedy that?
I was not that surprised when Standing Stone Games announced that their Mordor expansion for LOTRO would be released at the end of July, just weeks after several open beta tests. This is something the developers have done for a while, with all their major updates. One has to remember that despite a change of name, to core team developing LOTRO has not radically changed since they extricated themselves from Turbine. Something that SSG went out of their way to stress when they formally announced their move, last December. The press releases and interviews at the time focused on a sense of continuity and implied that SSG was now free from the corporate yolk of Warner Bros. and Turbine. It led to a great deal of optimism among LOTRO players and sparked a resurgence in the game. The fact that the MMO has now reached the end of Tolkien’s story and is about to embark upon its own original narrative has been well received. Yet LOTRO has always been regarded both by the faithful and by those outside, as a game that never quite lived up to its potential. Perhaps the release of Mordor would remedy that?
Well it would appear that the honeymoon between Standing Stone Games and the LOTRO player base is now over. There were cracks appearing in the façade of mutual goodwill during the anniversary event, when it became clear that several activities were exclusional. However, it has been the debacle over the pricing structure of the Mordor expansion that has returned community relationships back to how they were previously. Many LOTRO players do not consider the itemisation and costs of the three different editions of the expansion to be equitable. Once again, the game developers appear to be taking their customers loyalty and support for granted. Something that was a regular complaint when LOTRO was administered under the auspices of Turbine. It would appear that LOTRO is still tied to a cycle of controversies, poor decision making and potentially biting the hand that feeds it. So much for the concept of “a new broom sweeps clean”.
For the last seven years, LOTRO players have been left to assume (often by the inference of Turbine themselves) that a lot of the problems associated with the MMOs development have been down to Warner Bros. interference. However, according to information garnered from staff who have either left Turbine or been laid off, it would appear that has not been the case. Turbine were left to run things pretty much as they liked by their corporate owner, who it would seem were merely interested in obtaining the licence. Thus, we must deduce that all the controversies that have happened with the game since 2010, such as the barter wallet, mounted combat and the skills tree revamp, can all be laid at Turbine’s door. It would appear that Standing Stone Games, despite separating themselves from Turbine per se, have brought with them the same business mindset because it was theirs to begin with.
As ever with matters of this kind, unless the public are given specific information gained from inside the company in question, it really comes down to deductive reasoning and making “educated guesses”. We do not know the exact details of the relationship between Daybreak Game Company and Standing Stone Games. Are they just a publisher or are more involved and control the purse strings? Did they have any say in deciding the pricing of the Mordor expansion? We do not know for certain. However, while these questions and others are debated on the forums and gaming websites, LOTRO players once again find themselves robustly supporting a game that still seems to be failing to meet its potential and at odds with a developer that doesn’t seem to listen as well as it claims. When one stands back and objectively looks at the life cycle of LOTRO, it really has dodged several major bullets mainly due to the goodwill of the players, who seem to be exceptionally forgiving. Perhaps too much so. If this MMO was an original IP with a different audience, then I do not think it would have lasted the ten years that it has.
Money Changes Everything
When I look back at the various posts I’ve written about gaming over the past decade, several themes regularly occur. Player toxicity, marketing hype and industry shenanigans are three that never seem to go away. Pre-order culture, fans enthusiasm and launch day disappointment are also perennial bad pennies. However, there is one point that I constantly find myself reiterating. Yet despite its staggeringly obvious nature it is habitually overlooked and ignored. Namely that money changes everything. Regardless of the nature of a situation, be it the cost of an item in the cash store, alterations to a games mechanics or the relationship between a You Tube personality and their audience, if it involves some sort of financial exchange then it fundamentally alters the dynamic of that given situation.
When I look back at the various posts I’ve written about gaming over the past decade, several themes regularly occur. Player toxicity, marketing hype and industry shenanigans are three that never seem to go away. Pre-order culture, fans enthusiasm and launch day disappointment are also perennial bad pennies. However, there is one point that I constantly find myself reiterating. Yet despite its staggeringly obvious nature it is habitually overlooked and ignored. Namely that money changes everything. Regardless of the nature of a situation, be it the cost of an item in the cash store, alterations to a games mechanics or the relationship between a You Tube personality and their audience, if it involves some sort of financial exchange then it fundamentally alters the dynamic of that given situation.
People are motivated to blog, podcast, live stream and make videos for a variety of reasons. Some do it to please themselves, where some like to please others. It is actually possible to achieve both. If you are persistent in your endeavours and communicate with your audience positively, then you will get some traction. But there are consequences to being successful and I’m not talking exclusively about having an audience of millions. Even a modest site such as Contains Moderate Peril can be subject to some basic internet cause and effect mechanics. Audiences, or readers in my case, consume content voraciously. They also foster expectations regardless of whether you’ve directly instigated them. If you create new material daily, your audience will grow to expect it daily. If you significantly deviate from such a schedule there are consequences. In my case, between March and April last year I took a break from writing and as a result my traffic tanked. It has taken a year plus to recover. Interruptions to the podcast schedule also killed the listener numbers.
Now the reason I mention this is because, even before you’ve got to the point of taking money from your audience, you have to deal with their expectations, regardless of whether they are founded or not. I have known several fan related sites that have been criticised for changing direction, deviating from perceived schedules or having the unmitigated gall to cease producing their free service. But the moment you accept money from your audience, then your independent status is lost. You are no longer providing content but a service. Fans are often blighted by a malady which seems to equate support with direct input. Add money to that spurious equation and you will inevitably have problems. It doesn’t matter what route you take or what platform you use to raise capital, paying is perceived by some as buying a share in “You Incoporated”. Thus, we have Twitch streamers who are criticised for how they spend the money they are “given”, fansites lambasted for championing or not championing specific issues. And at present, popular You Tube personality Joe “Angry Joe” Vargas is at war with a faction of his so-called “Angry Army” of subscribers.
I have in the past toyed with monetising both this site and the associated podcast(s). For a brief period of time, I asked for PayPal donations when the hosting costs were getting extravagant. However, that ended when I was offered a sponsorship deal with Host1Plus. When I moved the site in 2015 to Squarespace I decided it was easier to simply bank roll all my projects myself because it just guaranteed that I could do my own thing free from any external constraints. That’s not to say that I don’t support the notion that people providing content on the internet should be paid, because I do. It’s just that the Huffington Post business model and the fallacy of “exposure” has done a lot of damage. Sadly, Joe Public has become use to getting “free stuff” and it’s very hard to try and overcome that mindset. So, for the present I look upon my online projects as “indulgences” and will fund them myself to maintain my creative control.
If one broadens the scope of the argument that “money changes everything” it is clear that it permeates everything in life and alters are relationship with it. In the UK, university education used to be selective and free of charge. However, now it is more accessible but as more people use it, is chargeable via a deferred loan. Some students no longer see education as a self-determined process of personal improvement but simply as the buying of a service. Thus, academic under achievement is seen not as a personal failure, but as a business dispute. Such a mindset shows how money alters the perception of any undertaking. Thus, some MMO gamers want bespoke content that suits their needs, You Tube subscribers feel that they should dictate what content is posted on a channel and the entire field of crowdfunded projects is rife with complaints, acrimony and misplaced demands.
Now it is fair to say that there is nothing inherently wrong with the traditional business and customer relationship, as long as both parties accept it as such. The same can be said regarding the free content providers and their audiences. Both are perfectly equitable arrangement as along as everyone understand their respective role. Sadly, the internet has impacted upon this perception. Fans think they’re on the board of director’s, Patreon subscribers fail to understand what “donation” actually means and support for any undertaking in general is seen as a point of leverage. Plus, any sort of financial transaction means some sort of contract. Adding a legal veneer to a situation only adds to its complexity.
As I’m writing this very post, someone on my Twitter timeline has just tweeted about how their patrons can now vote on what they review next. If they are happy with this situation then that is fine but it highlights exactly how “money changes everything”. Contains Moderate Peril is never going to make me rich or even break even. But for the present it is exclusively my platform and that makes the operating costs worthwhile. If you feel the need to tell me what I should or should not be doing on my personal site then that is your prerogative. However, I can also ignore your demands and tell you to fuck right off with a clear conscience. So, my advice to any budding blogger, podcaster or You Tuber, is to think long and hard before you take the proverbial “King’s Shilling”. A source of revenue may well be all fine and dandy but at the costs of your independence?
The Stone Tape (1972)
The Stone Tape is a television play directed by Peter Sasdy and starring Michael Bryant, Jane Asher, Michael Bates and Iain Cuthbertson. It was first broadcast on BBC Two at Christmas 1972. Combining aspects of science fiction and horror, the story concerns a team of research scientists who move into their new facility, a renovated Victorian mansion that is allegedly haunted. Upon investigation, they learn that the haunting is a recording of a past event held within the very fabric of the structure. Believing that this may be the key to the development of a new recording medium, they throw all their expertise technology into learning how the stones preserves its recording. However, their investigations lead to more sinister and tragic events.
The Stone Tape is a television play directed by Peter Sasdy and starring Michael Bryant, Jane Asher, Michael Bates and Iain Cuthbertson. It was first broadcast on BBC Two at Christmas 1972. Combining aspects of science fiction and horror, the story concerns a team of research scientists who move into their new facility, a renovated Victorian mansion that is allegedly haunted. Upon investigation, they learn that the haunting is a recording of a past event held within the very fabric of the structure. Believing that this may be the key to the development of a new recording medium, they throw all their expertise technology into learning how the stones preserves its recording. However, their investigations lead to more sinister and tragic events.
The Stone Tape was written by Nigel Kneale, best known as the writer of the Quatermass series. Its juxtaposition of science and superstition is a common theme in much of Kneale's work; in particular, his 1952 radio play "You Must Listen", about a haunted telephone line. The Stone Tape was also influenced by a visit Kneale paid to the BBC's research and development department, which was based in an old Victorian house in Kingswood, Surrey. Critically acclaimed at time, The Stone Tape remains well regarded to this day as one of Kneale's best and most disturbing works. Since its broadcast, the hypothesis that residual hauntings are recordings of past events made by the natural environment, has come to be known as the “Stone Tape Theory”.
Nearly half a century on, certain aspects of The Stone Tape have dated. It's production design and soundtrack reflect seventies pop culture. The imperialist attitudes displayed along with the lead male characters inherent misogyny seem very archaic now. Yet the plot themes and underlying scientific premise are very contemporary. The lack of visual effects enhances the atmosphere as well as the growing tension and unease. It should also be noted that this was a drama made for television in the editorial style of the time. By today’s standards this is a slow burn but frankly all the better for it. The play was obviously an influence on such films as John carpenter’s Prince of Darkness and Tobe Hooper's Poltergeist and is a prime example of Nigel Kneale's best work. In an age when spectacle and aesthetics tend to drown out narrative in genre productions, The Stone Tape remains a true milestone, demonstrating that it is ideas and character that sustain a quality drama.
Social Media and Personal Identity
I'm fascinated by social media and the way it has been adopted by the wider community. A multitude of people utilise in a multitude of ways for so many different reasons. Therefore, I felt that it was time again to focus and discuss the phenomenon in a blog post. I have embraced social media, especially Twitter, mainly to promote my writing. I started “tweeting” in 2010 and along the way my use of the medium has become more socially orientated. I enjoy the interactions I share with a broad and eclectic group of people immensely. However, it should be noted that my Google + page, as well as Twitter and Facebook accounts are all based around Contains Moderate Peril and not my specifically my personal life. I like to maintain a distinction between these different aspects of my life. At present, I believe I have found the right balance.
I'm fascinated by social media and the way it has been adopted by the wider community. A multitude of people utilise in a multitude of ways for so many different reasons. Therefore, I felt that it was time again to focus and discuss the phenomenon in a blog post. I have embraced social media, especially Twitter, mainly to promote my writing. I started “tweeting” in 2010 and along the way my use of the medium has become more socially orientated. I enjoy the interactions I share with a broad and eclectic group of people immensely. However, it should be noted that my Google + page, as well as Twitter and Facebook accounts are all based around Contains Moderate Peril and not my specifically my personal life. I like to maintain a distinction between these different aspects of my life. At present, I believe I have found the right balance.
Now this raises the question of whether my online persona is genuine. How much do readers of Contains Moderate Peril, listeners of the podcast (which is on hiatus at present) and Twitter followers actually see of the "real me"? Well I think they get a measured version of myself. I keep certain aspect of life private while amplifying others. I also think that a certain amount of the "real me" inevitably permeates my writing and online presence by some process of emotional osmosis. Over the last eighteen months I have touched upon more personal aspects of my life, because they are significant aspects of my daily reality. However, I don’t share everything and there is much that I deem off limits.
Some people think this controlled flow of information via social media is somewhat cynical and contrived. Yet I think we all do it to a greater or lesser degree in the real world in our day-to-day relationships. As a species, we always strive to present the best possible representation of ourselves to others. In fact, I've noticed that some cultures are far more invested in this idea than others. In principle, there is nothing wrong with this. Speaking your mind all the time could prove problematic; hence we have social niceties and etiquette. However, if you are continuously trying to reinvent yourself for public consumption because you are inherently uncomfortable in your own skin then that is most definitely a problem.
I think age and how you feel about yourself most certainly have an impact upon how you conduct yourself on Twitter and other platforms. People naturally want to be liked and also be accepted. There is an imperative to be an individual and at the same time “normal”, which is a very nebulous concept. I prefer the broader concept of societal norms and knowing when to accommodate them. Social media as many has pointed out, liberates us from social cues and other vital aspects of communication. Then there is the old chestnut of anonymity and the lack of consequences that come with the internet. There is often scope to forget that we are dealing with another individual when using social media. I think most of us have made this mistake at some point and may have regretted what we've said or how we've treated someone.
Naturally there are counter points to all the above. As I've already stated, I have set limits and constraints on my online interactions. Others go a step further and live completely different lives online, so it is prudent not to take everything on face value. As in the real world, online friendships need to be approached with a similar degree of caution and common sense. I think it is important to focus on the positive things that social media and online friendships can achieve, such as breaking down of geographical boundaries perceived cultural differences. Although Twitter is often associated with birds of a feather flocking together and entrenched views, the complete opposite can often happen. Social media is a great way to bypass misinformation and learn about how others truly live and think. Sometimes the similarities between us speak far louder than the differences.
Classic Movie Themes: Excalibur (1981)
Excalibur (1981) is a visually arresting retelling of the Arthurian legend. Filmed at a time when studios where happy to finance large budget fantasy films, John Boormans movie is not your typical sword and sorcery fodder. It’s an adult adaptation of Mallory's Morte' D'arthur, filled with scenes of sex and violence, driven by some eclectic and eccentric performances from the ensemble British cast. The film boasts a handsome production design with a very stylised aesthetic. The Irish locations are lush and verdant. This is not intended to be a historically accurate portrayal of the source text but more of a visual homage. Excalibur evokes both the mythic power of Tolkien and the operatic splendour of Wagner. Boorman had tried to adapt The Lord of the Rings a decade earlier.
Excalibur (1981) is a visually arresting retelling of the Arthurian legend. Filmed at a time when studios where happy to finance large budget fantasy films, John Boormans movie is not your typical sword and sorcery fodder. It’s an adult adaptation of Mallory's Morte' D'arthur, filled with scenes of sex and violence, driven by some eclectic and eccentric performances from the ensemble British cast. The film boasts a handsome production design with a very stylised aesthetic. The Irish locations are lush and verdant. This is not intended to be a historically accurate portrayal of the source text but more of a visual homage. Excalibur evokes both the mythic power of Tolkien and the operatic splendour of Wagner. Boorman had tried to adapt The Lord of the Rings a decade earlier.
The soundtrack for the film blends original material by composer Trevor Jones along with classical pieces. The opening scenes in which Uther Pendragon is victorious in battle plays out against Siegfried's Funeral March from The Ring by Richard Wagner. This arrangement was specially recorded by London Philharmonic Orchestra and conducted by Norman Del Mar. It is a very imposing sequence, especially the entrance of Merlin (Nicol Williamson). The use of classical music in movies is not as easy as some may think and it requires a lot of skill to choose an appropriate piece that compliments the movie’s visual. Boorman's choice of Wagner is both wise and appropriate and thus greatly enhances the movie.
Below is the edited version of the track specifically designed for the movie, followed by a full recording.
The Trivialisation of World War II?
I have enjoyed Sniper Elite 4 and all of the sundry DLC immensely since its release in Spring. The game presents an interesting alternative to the traditional shooter with its stealth based level design. The latest instalment, Obliteration (the third part of an ongoing story), is set in an empty Bavarian town and has an intricate map with an authentic period feel. It offers opportunities for both long range sniping and close quarters stealth kills. Overall, I have found that the franchise provides engaging and complex gameplay, as well as satisfying the players baser need for blood and violence. However, playing this and other similar titles got me thinking. It would appear that World War II, one of the defining periods of the last century that still has ramifications today, is in certain quarters now simply a setting, a plot device or a Hitchcockian MacGuffin. Is the broader subtext of this major event now irrelevant to a generation of players because they have no immediate connection to this period in history? If that is the case, exactly when does it become acceptable for something of this magnitude, to be trivialised in this manner (if that is indeed the case).
I have enjoyed Sniper Elite 4 and all of the sundry DLC immensely since its release in Spring. The game presents an interesting alternative to the traditional shooter with its stealth based level design. The latest instalment, Obliteration (the third part of an ongoing story), is set in an empty Bavarian town and has an intricate map with an authentic period feel. It offers opportunities for both long range sniping and close quarters stealth kills. Overall, I have found that the franchise provides engaging and complex gameplay, as well as satisfying the players baser need for blood and violence. However, playing this and other similar titles got me thinking. It would appear that World War II, one of the defining periods of the last century that still has ramifications today, is in certain quarters now simply a setting, a plot device or a Hitchcockian MacGuffin. Is the broader subtext of this major event now irrelevant to a generation of players because they have no immediate connection to this period in history? If that is the case, exactly when does it become acceptable for something of this magnitude, to be trivialised in this manner (if that is indeed the case).
If memory serves, in early 2010 EA ran into some PR problems during the run up to the launch of Medal of Honor, when it was revealed that in the multiplayer mode players could play as the Taliban. Needless to say, this decision was robustly challenged by sections of the “popular” press, politicians and many bodies representing servicemen and their families. Eventually, EA capitulated and changed the multiplayer game so that the enemy was known as the Opposing Force or OP4 in military jargon. If we dispense with the tabloid hyperbole and faux moral outrage from blustering politicians, it would appear that the main objection to this situation was that there are still many servicemen and women as well as their families that have suffered directly or indirectly at the hands of the Taliban. It is the current and ongoing human connection to the associated events in Afghanistan that were problematic and thus causes potential public outrage.
So, it would seem that time and an emotional link to the matter in hand, decides whether a historical event is either a bonafide setting for a game or nothing more than tasteless exploitation. Because when you apply these criteria to World War II then we find that many people, especially those under twenty-five, have no living relatives that served or grew up during that era. Hence the passage of time renders these profoundly important events into abstract, textbook history. Effectively it becomes something to be read about, but with no immediate bearing on one’s current existence, although obviously the complete opposite is true. This sense of disconnection with the past is further compounded by socio-political and economic change. Culturally speaking contemporary London, as seen through the eyes of a twentysomething, is a world apart from what my Father’s generation experienced, seventy plus years earlier.
Both my Grandfathers served during World War II. One was an Army Surgeon and the other served in the Eighth Army. My Father was born in 1929 and lived in South London during the Blitz. For him and his peers, World War II was a defining point in his life. He still uses to this day the phrase “before the War” as a means to reference the societal difference between then and now. I grew up in the seventies knowing many men and women who had served. There was a Theology teacher at one of my schools who had spent several years in a Japanese P.O.W camp. One of our neighbours when I was growing up, was a veteran and a member of The Burma Star Association. I would conservatively estimate that for at least four decades after the end of World War II, British society was still tangibly experiencing its fallout in some shape or form.
Yet, time and tide wait for no man. Call of Duty will be releasing their latest instalment of their game in November this year and the franchise is returning to its roots with a World War II setting. Due to the immense popularity of this FPS, a substantial percentage of players who are young, will be introduced to a historical setting that they are not overly familiar with. What will they make of the Normandy landings, the scale of the loss of life and the fundamental causes for World War II itself? Will they simply see the Germans as “baddies” by cultural default? Has the inherent evil of Nazi policies and of Hitler himself any immediate significance, or are they now nothing more than clichéd exemplars of stereotypical notions of evil. Have the passage of time and popular culture simply neutered them of their potency?
As I stated at the start of this post, this article stems from a train of thought and still remains a point to ponder, rather than a working theory. Such a subject needs to be explored by greater thinkers than I and no doubt have been. Already I’m pondering counterpoints to my own assertion. For example, I grew up at a time when a substantial number of comics still had stories set in World War II. Precious few were of any note. Where these also contributing to the trivialisation process I have suggested? What about the films and TV dramas that filled theatres and broadcasting schedules during the post war decades? Are comedies such as 'Allo 'Allo! or Hogan's Heroes artistically justified or potentially just as offensive and exploitative as games such as Sniper Elite (assuming you see them in such terms)?
As someone who tries to avoid the binary or a tendency towards knee-jerk responses, these are all difficult questions to answer. Especially at a time when rationality has been usurped by the cult of virtue signalling and an addiction to “finding offense”. I would like to think that common sense may prevail but even that seems to be a term that we cannot agree upon these days. As for the trivialisation of World War II and potentially many other important events and causes, I think that it will remain a hotly debated topic. If you’re looking for games publishers to act and think responsibly then I’m sure the majority will disappoint you. Morality seldom deters and as we have seen, change is usually only embraced if there is risk to the bottom line. As for myself, I have sufficient gumption not to allow the depiction of World War II in video games to impact upon my real-world perspective of those historical events themselves. Yet I still have a nagging feeling from time to time that something about these titles is somehow “troubling”.
Dunkirk (2017)
Dunkirk is an extraordinary war movie, that eschews the traditional sprawling format of its predecessors, filled with celebrity cameos and contrived expositionary dialogue. Instead Christopher Nolan manages to embrace the concept of “show, don’t tell”, yet uses what little dialogue he has to succinctly punctuate the unfolding story with emotion and gravitas. There is a sense of spectacle, yet it is far from the stark and dispassionate CGI we usually see. Through creative and focused editing Nolan generates a palpable sense of tension, be it in the air with extraordinary aerial dogfights or on the ground as men flee sinking ships and dodge artillery fire. Dunkirk facilitates an intense and emotional journey during its lean 106 minute running time. It is altogether a remarkable piece of cinema.
Dunkirk is an extraordinary war movie, that eschews the traditional sprawling format of its predecessors, filled with celebrity cameos and contrived expositionary dialogue. Instead Christopher Nolan manages to embrace the concept of “show, don’t tell”, yet uses what little dialogue he has to succinctly punctuate the unfolding story with emotion and gravitas. There is a sense of spectacle, yet it is far from the stark and dispassionate CGI we usually see. Through creative and focused editing Nolan generates a palpable sense of tension, be it in the air with extraordinary aerial dogfights or on the ground as men flee sinking ships and dodge artillery fire. Dunkirk facilitates an intense and emotional journey during its lean 106 minute running time. It is altogether a remarkable piece of cinema.
Dunkirk features a non-linear narrative with three separate stories that overlap, often providing a different perspective upon the other. The Mole follows three infantrymen as they try to jump the queue and find an alternative means off the beach. The Sea is the story of a Father and son who take their family boat to Dunkirk to rescue survivors and how they pick up a “shell shocked” soldier along the way. The Air focuses on three Spitfire pilots as they try to provide cover for the retreating ships. What Dunkirk doesn’t do is wallow in an excess of historical background detail, contrived patriotism or emotional manipulation. There is no Winston Churchill and more importantly no evil Nazis. The enemy remains conspicuously distant either sniping, shelling or dive bombing. Nolan places the audience in the centre of a military disaster, stripped of most of its subjective context. The tension and sense of threat is constant and authentic.
Hans Zimmer scores Dunkirk with discordant ambient tones. It is far from a traditional soundtrack but as stated, Dunkirk is not a traditional war movie. This is not just a movie about a major military defeat but a tale of those souls caught in the middle of it all. They do not have the benefit of historical hindsight and the film is effectively an exploration of men enduring catastrophic events happening around them. However, Dunkirk is not bereft of character development and there are strong performances by Mark Rylance, Cillian Murphy and Tom Hardy. Rather than building complex backstories and playing with our feelings towards the cast, Christopher Nolan creates genuine jeopardy and is not averse to delivering tragedy without the ubiquitous clichéd Hollywood trappings.
A few critics have already accused Dunkirk as being a soulless representation of combat, citing similarities with the set pieces in the Call of Duty video game franchise. Yet this is not the case. Yes, the physical effects are staggering and the films technical excellence is beyond reproach. But there are touches of humanity conveyed through the subtlest use of dialogue or nuanced acting throughout the film. It is there when Mark Rylance tells Cillian Murphy “there’s no hiding from this son, there’s a job do”, and when Tom Hardy perceptibly winces as he realises that despite being low on fuel he cannot leave an allied ship exposed to a German bomber. It is in these honest scenes that Dunkirk finds its greatness. And when the armada of “little ships” finally arrives to strains of Hans Zimmer’s evocative variation of Nimrod, it is profoundly moving.
I suspect that in the same way Saving Private Ryan significantly altered the depiction of war in film back in 1998, Dunkirk may well have a similar effect henceforward. I’m sure some audiences may view the film through the prism of Brexit and vicariously try and champion it as a metaphor for their cause. However, I think that Christopher Nolan’s delineation of this military disaster that was spun in to a political triumph, elevates it above such partisan perspectives. Dunkirk is an intense, gripping and credible view of the nature of war and its impact upon those caught in it. It strength lies in vignettes of human drama set amid an epic and destructive canvas. It is also a compelling drama imbued with a tangible sense of suspense. Cinema seldom gets this good. Go see it on the biggest screen you can find.
Jurassic World (2015)
Hollywood is a cyclical place and often repeats decisions it's successfully made in the past. During the early seventies, the mainstream film industry head hunted a lot of up and coming talent from the independent film making community, or took a chance on directors who were fresh out of film school. It was a means to an end and a way to tap into the new talent that was proving popular and lucrative. Similarly, Warner Bros. followed suit in 2014 when Gareth Edwards was hired to direct the multi-million-dollar Godzilla reboot. His previous movie was the self-financed indie Sci-Fi picture Monsters. Godzilla went on to be both a box office and critical hit.
Hollywood is a cyclical place and often repeats decisions it's successfully made in the past. During the early seventies, the mainstream film industry head hunted a lot of up and coming talent from the independent film making community, or took a chance on directors who were fresh out of film school. It was a means to an end and a way to tap into the new talent that was proving popular and lucrative. Similarly, Warner Bros. followed suit in 2014 when Gareth Edwards was hired to direct the multi-million-dollar Godzilla reboot. His previous movie was the self-financed indie Sci-Fi picture Monsters. Godzilla went on to be both a box office and critical hit.
So, after years of languishing in development hell, the job of making Jurassic World was finally given to director Colin Trevorrow, who like Edwards only had at that time, a single small feature film credit to his resume. But "talent will out" as the expression goes and Jurassic World has proven to be a very respectable entry to the franchise. It develops the existing themes established in the previous three movies and manages to add several contemporary angles. It is tonally astute and finds the right balance between action, suspense and wry humour. The cast is spot on and the narrative is well paced. It doesn't skimp on the "wow" factor either and the digital and animatronic dinosaurs on display still genuinely impress.
What I liked most about Jurassic World is its keen sense of social observation and the fact that despite the Velociraptors, Pterosaurs and Indominus Rex it still nails what humans are like. So many of the ideas that are developed, ring true. Jurassic World is depicted as a declining financial undertaking for its owners because Joe public has grown accustomed and bored with dinosaurs. For many of the tourists the parks denizens have become as common place as elephants. The movie also does an excellent job of cataloguing the monetisation of the holiday resort. There are known brands everywhere, the same way there are in real world theme parks. Kids seem more interested by their smartphones than by the dinosaurs.
Another interesting theme that runs through the movie is that of animal psychology. Chris Pratt has not “tamed” the group of Velociraptors he works with but through behavioural science has managed to condition them and learn how to interact with them on their own terms. Now as this movie was designed to be a summer blockbuster, naturally such ideas are taken to extremes but it does raise some good questions about exactly how intelligent were dinosaurs, especially those that hunted in packs and therefore required a working form of social interaction.
Once again composer Michael Giacchinno rises to the challenge of writing a soundtrack for a franchise that already has an established set of iconic themes. He uses John William's cues sparingly and effectively. His own original material is as ever, intelligent, appropriate and of the highest quality. Overall the score helps maintain a sense of continuity to the proceedings. The same can be said about the visual effects work by Industrial Light and Magic and Legacy Effects (formerly Stan Winston Studios). Despite the fourteen-year long hiatus Jurassic World still has the same ambience as its predecessors.
The box office success of Jurassic World yet again demonstrates the public's ongoing fascination with dinosaurs. When I first saw this movie upon its release, you could hear a pin drop for most of the two-hour running time, only for it to be replaced by screaming at the appropriate junctures. I wholeheartedly believe that pretty much everyone left the cinema thoroughly entertained. The tension and thrills remained upon a second viewing two years on. Jurassic World works because the production team fundamentally understands the material that they're making. No postmodern irony or cynicism, just dinosaurs with big pointed teeth and a movie that doesn't try to fix something that isn't broken.
Collecting
Once again Syp over at Bio-Break has written a post that provides a talking point for other bloggers. This time it’s about collecting which is a very broad church indeed. When I was a child it was a common mantra of adults at the time to “get a hobby”. I suppose from their perspective a busy and engaged child is one that is likely to stay out of trouble and frankly it’s still sound advice. Many hobbies involve collecting and this can tangentially teach positive lessons such as fiscal prudence, patience and learning about that which you enjoy. In his post Syp raises the point as to whether he’s missed out by never having been bitten by the collecting bug but he also reflects on some practical problems associated with such pastimes. I was going to leave a comment on the post but it soon became apparent that it would be a little too long, so this blog post is my response.
Once again Syp over at Bio-Break has written a post that provides a talking point for other bloggers. This time it’s about collecting which is a very broad church indeed. When I was a child it was a common mantra of adults at the time to “get a hobby”. I suppose from their perspective a busy and engaged child is one that is likely to stay out of trouble and frankly it’s still sound advice. Many hobbies involve collecting and this can tangentially teach positive lessons such as fiscal prudence, patience and learning about that which you enjoy. In his post Syp raises the point as to whether he’s missed out by never having been bitten by the collecting bug but he also reflects on some practical problems associated with such pastimes. I was going to leave a comment on the post but it soon became apparent that it would be a little too long, so this blog post is my response.
When I was young, I dabbled with collecting. Comics, trading cards, action figures are some of the things I doggedly pursued. But often I found that time, money and the practicalities of being a child, IE being busy playing, meant that such enterprises were doomed. It was not until the early nineties, when I had a job and a sizeable disposable income, that I was able to sustain the practical realities of collecting. I think this is an important factor to mention. Collecting requires passion which is something available to all age groups. Money is something that we don’t have continuous access to all our lives and it subtly alters the dynamic of collecting. It is far easier to start your collection while you still live at home and have “spare cash”. Marriage, family and mortgages can radically alter this equation.
Being a consummate film fan and an ardent completist, I started collecting films on what was the best physical medium of the time; LaserDiscs. In the early nineties, VHS sell-through tapes where king. However, if you were a serious movie aficionado, who wanted superior picture and sound quality as well as alternative cuts of a film, then LaserDiscs was where it was at (Daddy-o). At the time, a VHS tape of a popular film such as Terminator 2 would cost about £10. If you wanted the Director’s Cut of the same movie, in the correct aspect ratio with optional commentary by the cast, then it would cost between £30 to £40 on LaserDisc. It was a superior viewing experience all round. Although there were UK releases on this format, they were somewhat limited. A far greater choice was available if you bought US and European imports. Buying internationally also added to the allure of collecting.
Because of my passion for film, I bought circa 1991 a LaserDisc player that was dual standard (NTSC/PAL) and a new TV that could handles both UK and US picture standards. I think I spent near £750 on both. Over the next few years, I spent a great deal of time and money building up a collection of classic and cult films. Due to prohibitive censorship laws that prevailed in the UK at the time, a lot of the material I bought was technically illegal to import. There was a network of small companies at the time that worked within various legal loopholes to offer a specialist purchasing service. Thus, I owned the Director’s Cut of George A. Romero’s Dawn of the Dead at a time when it was only available in the UK in a pre-cut version. I also had the Criterion version of RoboCop in all its bloody glory. But the jewel in the crown of my collection was the Star Wars Trilogy in their original theatrical versions. LaserDiscs satisfied my needs as a fan as well as a film purist. For about seven or so years, I spent thousands of pounds on my collection. Being twelve-inch discs, they took up comparable space to a vinyl music collection.
However, time and tide waits for no man and it also doesn’t give a shit about collectors. Towards the end of the nineties, DVD became the de facto medium of choice and so I changed the focus of my collecting activities. Due to regional variations, multiple versions and good old-fashioned censorship, DVD proved to be an even more collectable format than LaserDisc. It was round about this time, when my personal collection of movies was over five hundred that I realised there had been a shift in the pleasure I got from collecting. It was no longer just about seeing the best and most complete version of a much-loved movie. I was in the thrall of the “thrill of the hunt”. A fact borne out by the number of discs I had that remained unwatched, still in their shrink wrap. I was also using up considerable storage space to accommodate my collection and it was proving to be somewhat of a drain on my finances. And then Blu-ray appeared on the market and opened up not only a new avenue of potential collecting but a can of worms. Did I really want to replace so much of my precious hoard?
It’s a curious thing how something that has taken years to amass, can be dispensed with and disposed of in a far quicker time. My Father-in-law was a prodigious collector of coins and medals. He was very proud of his collection and guest were frequently regaled with it. Yet collecting is often very personal and means little to those who do not share similar passions. When my Father-in-law died in 2012, his collection was sold quickly and efficiently to several professional collectors. It was just another asset to be disposed of, once his estate had been settled. And so it was with my film collection. Once I had determined that it was no longer the collection that mattered to me but just the act of acquisition, I felt no reason to continue doing either. The very rare and signed LaserDiscs where sold to a specialist film and memorabilia store. The rest of the DVDs where then sold online, or traded in at game stores. What was left was given away to charity shops.
I’m not sure if I have a major philosophical point to make about collecting, beyond the fact that many people that I’ve spoken to on the subject have had a similar journey. What starts off as a fun undertaking eventually becomes a millstone and possibly a minor addiction. It certainly can become a massive financial drain. I also think that collecting is a very solitary pastime and is not accommodating of relationships and other situations that compete for your time, attention and money. I am now at a point in my life where I have embraced downsizing and decluttering. Technology has also made so much previously rare material readily available. As a film fan, I now live in an age where tracking down high-quality copies of most movies is quite easy. I doubt if I’ll ever collect anything in my life again, yet I cannot totally write off the period of my life in which I did. It was fun initially regardless of where it led and I think it ended up teaching me a lot about myself.
Here's an episode of the Burton & Scrooge Podcast from September 2015. Brian and I have a fairly lengthy conversation about collecting, drawing upon our own personal experiences. The discussion begins at 27:12 into the show.
Shoot 'Em Up (2008)
Michael Davis Shoot ’Em Up is the tale of Mr. Smith (Clive Owen), a drifter with a possible special forces background and a liking for carrots who wants nothing more than to be left alone. However, he finds himself embroiled in a complex political conspiracy once he aids a pregnant woman who is being chased by a hitman. After the woman is killed, he takes the baby and goes on the run with a lactating prostitute (Monica Bellucci). Meanwhile, they are stalked by the intelligent and ruthless Hertz (Paul Giamatti), an ex-FBI forensic psychologist and his never-ending army of foot soldiers. A myriad of elaborate gunfights ensues and Smith slowly pieces together the reasons behind their pursuit. A United States Senator who strongly supports gun control has been breeding babies for their bone marrow to treat his cancer. A prominent gun baron has contracted Hertz to kill the babies, thus ending the senator’s political ambitions. Once the plot is expedited the mayhem continues.
Michael Davis Shoot ’Em Up is the tale of Mr. Smith (Clive Owen), a drifter with a possible special forces background and a liking for carrots who wants nothing more than to be left alone. However, he finds himself embroiled in a complex political conspiracy once he aids a pregnant woman who is being chased by a hitman. After the woman is killed, he takes the baby and goes on the run with a lactating prostitute (Monica Bellucci). Meanwhile, they are stalked by the intelligent and ruthless Hertz (Paul Giamatti), an ex-FBI forensic psychologist and his never-ending army of foot soldiers. A myriad of elaborate gunfights ensues and Smith slowly pieces together the reasons behind their pursuit. A United States Senator who strongly supports gun control has been breeding babies for their bone marrow to treat his cancer. A prominent gun baron has contracted Hertz to kill the babies, thus ending the senator’s political ambitions. Once the plot is expedited the mayhem continues.
It is alleged by director, Michael Davis that Shoot ’Em Up is a satirical look at American gun culture and the way it has become an integral part of the social fabric of the country. It also supposedly lampoons the contemporary action movie focusing on its style, ethics and “raison d’etre”. Whether or not this is the case remains to be seen. Joe Public didn't discern any hidden depths upon the films initial release. As it stands Shoot ’Em Up is simply an action film with a plot more preposterous than Crank, with a bunch of frenetic action scenes cribbed from Hong Kong cinema. The film lurches from a sense of tongue in cheek, to abject incredulity within the first ten minutes of the film, when a bad guy is dispatched by a carrot.
If you want action with a satirical subtext, then it is better represented by the work of Paul Verhoeven. Robocop and Starship Troopers being prime examples. The intellectual pretensions of Shoot 'Em Up definitely got lost during its making. However, there are a few good aspects to the proceedings. It is enjoyable spotting the homages to such classics as Hard Boiled and Django. And some of the dialogue is so excruciating it becomes quite droll. But by and large this film is a mess. Neither Owen or the talented Giamatti can save it. With the message lost, there’s nothing more than a film destined to be wilfully misconstrued by the tabloids. Therefore, avoid Shoot 'Em Up if you are easily offended or intolerant of the cinematic equivalent of the concept album.
George A. Romero (1940 - 2017)
Writer and director George A. Romero will forever be synonymous with the zombie genre and horror movies per se, as his work in this field was pioneering and outstanding. Yet, because of the success of his seminal film, Night of the Living Dead, he also brought a great deal of attention to independent film making and the way film making was financed. He was an intelligent and thoughtful film maker who used the medium of genre movies to explore a variety of socio-political themes. His characters were often flawed but credible and he had a knack for finding humanity in the bleakest of dramatic situations. If Romero had explored such ideas in mainstream cinema he would have garnered far more praise and potentially have won critical acclaim from the cinematic establishment.
Writer and director George A. Romero will forever be synonymous with the zombie genre and horror movies per se, as his work in this field was pioneering and outstanding. Yet, because of the success of his seminal film, Night of the Living Dead, he also brought a great deal of attention to independent film making and the way film making was financed. He was an intelligent and thoughtful film maker who used the medium of genre movies to explore a variety of socio-political themes. His characters were often flawed but credible and he had a knack for finding humanity in the bleakest of dramatic situations. If Romero had explored such ideas in mainstream cinema he would have garnered far more praise and potentially have won critical acclaim from the cinematic establishment.
I had the pleasure of seeing George A. Romero interviewed at the British Film Institute several times over the last two decades. He was a quietly spoken, thoughtful man who was very cinematically literate. He was also very gracious towards his fans, who were often utterly besotted with him and his work. Yet, he took time to answer their questions in a comprehensive and positive way. It also became very clear that he was far removed from the “auteur director” moniker that he’d been saddled with. He spoke very generously about the talent he’d had the pleasure of working with over the years and he certainly lacked the ego we so often see from certain creative quarters. I think this contributed to the clarity and honesty of his film making.
In many ways Dawn of the Dead remains George A. Romero’s magnum opus. It is as pertinent today as a social and political commentary as it was in 1978 upon its release. As a personal preference, I would recommend The Extended Mall Hours Cut of the film which is a fan edit that combines all material seen in the Director’s Cut and Argento Cut of the film. It is as close an approximation of Romero’s original rough cut of the movie as you can find. This version delves in to the human element of the narrative further and really does add a somewhat different tone to the film’s final act. Seldom does mainstream cinema get this thoughtful and as introspective, let alone genre cinema. But that was George A. Romero’s gift. Free from studio interferences and financial imperatives, he could focus on credible and honest film making. He will be missed.
Doctor Who: BBC Cast Jodie Whittaker
This afternoon, the BBC announced that Jodie Whittaker would be the thirteenth incarnation of the Time Lord, Doctor Who; the first woman to be given the role. Quite predictably, the internet went into meltdown, with cheers from some quarters and howls of derision from others. I make no bones about the fact that I got a great deal of Schadenfreude from this. Why exactly? Well we’ll come back to that point a little later. First off let me say that I really don’t mind about this casting decision. From what I’ve seen, Jodie Whittaker is an extremely competent actor and if given robust and engaging material, will excel as the new Doctor. I have no axe to grind here, either from a lore or a socio-political perspective. If the shit fits, wear it, is what I say.
This afternoon, the BBC announced that Jodie Whittaker would be the thirteenth incarnation of the Time Lord, Doctor Who; the first woman to be given the role. Quite predictably, the internet went into meltdown, with cheers from some quarters and howls of derision from others. I make no bones about the fact that I got a great deal of Schadenfreude from this. Why exactly? Well we’ll come back to that point a little later. First off let me say that I really don’t mind about this casting decision. From what I’ve seen, Jodie Whittaker is an extremely competent actor and if given robust and engaging material, will excel as the new Doctor. I have no axe to grind here, either from a lore or a socio-political perspective. If the shit fits, wear it, is what I say.
What I do find fascinating are some of the objections raised on Twitter and on the comments section of most major online news outlets. As there’s a lot of ground to cover I’ll try and keep it brief. Everyone, as ever, is entitled to their opinion but let us not forget that opinions are not of equal value. First off, if you object to the casting of Jodie Whittaker out of personal preference, IE there’s another actor you’d have rather seen play the role, then fine. That’s a perfectly okay stance to have. I got a Sainbury’s delivery the other day and they substituted toffee and vanilla ice cream cones with chocolate and nut ones. I prefer the former to the latter. Life is all about preferences of some kind, is it not?
However, there are objections being made which betray a mindset that there are clear gender roles within both fiction and real life and that a woman cannot be “The Doctor”. There are also certain fans who feel that the object of their affections should have some sort of protected status, define specifically by them. If they don’t like something, their fan status should be able to veto the offending decision. It is also not uncommon these days to see push back towards any sort of progressive socio-political decision. Culturally and politically, the west seems to be regressing with regard to social change. And let us not forget that incredulous notion, that a much loved worked of fiction can be “ruined” and that your fond memories can be sullied in some way. I guess this is some variant of the IPCRESS process.
All the above are frankly spurious objections. Some are born of sexism, some of fans intransigence or of outdated cultural conditioning and ideological baggage. Some protest are puerile, others mendacious and sadly a percentage are driven by pure hatred of any sort of social progression. What is important to bear in mind at present, is in the UK specifically, there is no clear majority mindset or consensus on political or social issues. We live in a very divided country and there is no prevailing moral stance. Recent political “surprises” such as Brexit have emboldened certain groups, who previously have kept their specific views hidden. Hence, we see claims that casting a woman is pandering to minority, despite the fact that women are hardly such a demographic. Yet sufficient people feel this way and are happy to express such an opinion.
I have no doubt that be it through personal preference, deep help beliefs or good old-fashioned prejudice, the next season of Doctor Who may well see some old school viewers refrain from watching. However, it is also very likely that this Doctor will also attract a new audience. And before we get into a debate about gender specific role models, can I put forward the rather quaint notion that a role model can potentially appeal to all, irrespective of gender, race, religion and shoe size. Yet despite the ongoing positivity in some quarters and the scope to broaden the viewer base for Doctor Who, it would be foolish to ignore certain practical business criteria. The BBC is a unique organisation but it is not immune from market forces. If for whatever reason they fumble the ball on the next season of Doctor Who and we see a substantial drop in global viewing figures and more importantly, sales, then this casting decision may well be reviewed. We do not yet live in an age where doing the right thing exclusively trumps business.
Finally, I want to return to my early point about Schadenfreude. Fellow blogger Syp (AKA Justin Olivetti) and all round nice guy tweeted this evening “It's like some people are genuinely excited that the new Doctor Who will upset others. Can't just be happy for what it is? I am”. I understand where this sentiment comes from and in principle, it is sound. Sadly, I do not think it is so easy to apply to many situations these days. This entire debacle over the thirteenth Doctor is in many ways a microcosm of the ongoing socio-political culture war. There is no overall prevailing ideology for change at present and politics is extremely sectarian. A percentage of the public have no appetite for further equality and would frankly like to see much of the progress of the recent decades rolled back. I do not wish to see this worldview fill the political vacuum. Sometimes you cannot steer the middle course and have to choose a side. You also have to robustly refute those views you feel are counterproductive. That at times means mocking and using humour, as it an effective political tool.
In the meantime, I shall await with a degree of excitement for the new season of Doctor Who that comes in 2018. I’m sure that the there’s a good chance that the current brouhaha will die down and if a good writing standard are maintained, the thirteenth Doctor will find her audience and keep the franchise popular and on course. Success in this instance would be the best way to counter future arguments along similar lines. Life is essentially about change and we need as a species to get better at dealing with it. Because the rancour that stems from resisting it, is frankly damaging to society.
Licence to Kill (1989)
Licence to Kill was the sixteenth instalment in the James Bond series and the last to star Timothy Dalton as MI6 agent James Bond. He sadly only made two and remains an underrated Bond. Licence to Kill was also the first official James Bond film to use a title not derived from either an Ian Fleming novel or a short story. However, it does contain characters and elements from Fleming's novel "Live and Let Die" and the short story "The Hildebrand Rarity". The film follows Bond's dismissal from MI6 and his vendetta against a South American drug baron. The film was originally due to be called "Licence Revoked" but was changed allegedly to avoid confusion with American audience
Licence to Kill is the sixteenth instalment in the James Bond series and the last to star Timothy Dalton as MI6 agent James Bond. He sadly only made two movies and remains an underrated Bond. Licence to Kill was also the first official James Bond film to use a title not derived from either an Ian Fleming novel or a short story. However, it does contain characters and elements from Fleming's novel "Live and Let Die" and the short story "The Hildebrand Rarity". The film follows Bond's dismissal from MI6 and his vendetta against a South American drug baron after an attack on his friend Felix Leiter. The film was originally due to be called "Licence Revoked" but was changed allegedly to avoid confusion with American audiences.
Licence to Kill was one of the least commercially successful Bond films. It had production costs of approximately $36 million and made only $156 million back at the box office. The previous Bond outing, The Living Daylights had made over $196 million. This drop can be attributed to the decision to release the film in the summer, in direct competition with Lethal Weapon 2, Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade (starring former Bond Sean Connery) and Batman. Bond films have traditionally been Autumn releases. Due to the death of screenwriter Richard Maibaum and subsequent legal battles over the ownership of the James Bond series, there was a subsequent six year hiatus until the next Bond movie Goldeneye in 1995. Licence to Kill has many unique factors that make it a milestone within the Bond franchise.
Licence to Kill has many unique factors that make it a milestone within the Bond franchise. It the first Bond film to be rated PG-13 in the US and 15 in the UK; all previous films were PG. Violent scenes still had to be trimmed in both the UK and US to avoid a higher classification. Director John Glen decided to make the film stronger in tone to directly compete with the contemporary competition. Action films had become more prevalent during the eighties and often included expensive and elaborate set pieces. These had been in the past the exclusive province of the Bond films. However, the release of the James Bond "Ultimate Editions" on DVD in 2006, restored all previously cut material. The fully uncut print was also sourced for the more recent Blu-ray disc in 2009.
Licence to Kill featured another major change for the franchise. Veteran Bond composer, John Barry was not available at the time of the post production, as he was undergoing throat surgery. Therefore, the soundtrack was composed and conducted by Michael Kamen, a British composer who had already scored several action films such as Lethal weapon and Die hard. Licence to Kill, despite poor financial returns, did perform well with numerous critics. It is still a source of division among fans. It is hard edged, minimalist and reflects the tone of Fleming's early novels very well. Dalton's performance, the lack of fanciful gadgets and glib one liners, is a radical change in style from the self-parodying excesses of Moonraker. Director John Glen deemed it to be the best of his five Bond films. On reflection, the market at the time was simply not ready for such a radical shift in the franchise. It is ironic that Casino Royale successfully managed to make such a change seventeen years later.
