Author Archives: Evan

Family Guy, Nine Years of Testing Our Patience

I could have had this post focus on Seth McFarlane’s cartoons, and how they’re the current low point in animation this decade. I could do that, but I won’t. Kyle Evans already did too good a job discussing this in his article “The ‘Art’ of Seth McFarlane“.

What I’m going to be talking about is McFarlane’s debut show Family Guy, known all around North America as the show that challenged, then defeated, The Simpsons.1  While I have watched a great deal of the show [essentially the last eight seasons] I have decided not to begin this upcoming tenth season. What follows is my primary reason for giving up on the show.

I’ve run out of patience. Continue reading

The Office and Why It Could Use a F◦R◦I◦E◦N◦D

First thing’s first, Michael Scott left the office. Sorry, did I say Michael Scott? I meant Steve Carrell. And no, I don’t mean to imply that he won’t have a very successful film career due to him only being seen as the boss of a paper company.Clearly he’s proven he can play many different characters.

The point is, he’s not returning. In the near future. I don’t doubt that he’ll be popping up for a special episode eventually. The point and important news that everyone probablyalready knows is this: there will be no replacement boss.

To be a little more specific, there will be no character that acts as a replacement for Michael Scott. James Spader, who will be acting as the new CEO of Dunder Mifflin, is quoted as saying, “The show is very balanced right now and they want to utilize the ensemble cast.”

Which is honestly not something I have a problem with. It’s just that, having been a big fan of The Office and knowing that Carrell was leaving, I’ve always envisioned a particular person stepping behind that desk in the Scranton Dunder Mifflin branch. I’ll give you a hint, it’s none of the people they hinted in the last episode of last season.3

The person is Matthew Perry. AKA, Chandler from Friends. My argument is this:

Where Carrell played a boss who was extremely competent yet whollyinappropriate, Perry could portray a neurotic bundle of nerves. It’s the character he played on Friends, and one who also makes appearances in 17 Again,as well as the short-lived Mr. Sunshine.5

He would be uptight and constantly nervous and always freaking out, and because of this I think it would be an opportunity for the other characters in the office to affect their boss more than the other way around. Where Michael Scott influenced everyone he interacted with, this would be a character that would grow and change because of the people he worked with.

After that I suppose he’d have to go, since a show can’t continue with everything being right in the world; a principal character being calm and at peace with himself is awkward at best.

Either way,  I’m just thinking out loud. I’m very excited to see how the show will continue without Carrell, and I can only hope that the network or whoever is correct in thinking the current cast will be able to hold their own. I guess in one week we’ll know.

1. See Mark Hamill’s film career post-Star Wars.

2. I honestly don’t know how much people keep up on stuff like this. I really don’t know.

3. Though I loved Jim Carrey’s character. As well as Ray Romano’s. I was not especially endeared to the rest of them.

4. Personally, I thought Zac Efron played a great old Matthew Perry trapped inside the body of a young Zac Efron.

5. Not that I’ve seen it. I’m just disappointed it was cancelled after one season.

9/11: Ten Years Later

I understand that there are people out there who believe that it’s
irreverent and disrespectful to refer to what happened to the World Trade Centre with an abbreviation, but the news has deemed it an acceptable term, so I have no qualms in doing so.

To further preface this post, I am a Canadian. More than that, I spent roughly half my life in Asia, so I don’t have the deep emotional connections to the event that many of you probably do. I watched the replays of the towers fall while in the Philippines, an ocean away.

I was deeply saddened and shocked by what occurred, but didn’t think much about it again until about two years ago, when I heard about what was being done with the remains of the towers. Right now there is a battleship named The USS New York, a Navy assault ship built with steel from the World Trade Centre. As a symbol it certainly holds a different viewpoint when it comes to beating swords into ploughshares.

Much more recently I stumbled upon the infographic on the right. It goes into detail about the new World Trade Centre, and the awe-inspiring ideas behind it.

The new building will be 1,776 feet, the tallest in the US. While the exact height is representative of the years of the country’s independence, I think it represents more than that. The USS New York is the remnants of a tragedy forged into a weapon. The new World Trade Centre may only be 49 feet taller than the former, but the fact that it stands that much taller communicates America’s fearlessness and audacity; if you knock it down we will rebuild it bigger.

There’s quite a bit of news all over the place about memorial services, and servicemen and servicewomen not being able to attend due to “important” people being there, but that’s for other, more well-researched articles. The point I’m trying to make is that ten years ago catastrophe occurred, and since then a nation has been trying to get back on its feet. The whole world is paying close attention to see how exactly America will choose move forward.

Christians, Sex, and Marriage

A few nights ago I sat on a friend’s front porch, nursing my drink and amusedly watching at least one of them smoke a cigar. Our conversation meandered here and there, but eventually struck a notable point when the married one directed at another:

You know, you will probably not have sex on your wedding night. Your wife will be far too tight.

While this was hilarious largely due to the person he was talking to [and his particular stance on women/relationships], it stuck with me because of  the assumptions that were present in the statement.

Firstly, there was the assumption that all of us were Christians [most of us were]. The second assumption was that as Christians  we were saving ourselves for  marriage, and that in turn we were also looking for a spouse that would uphold the same ideals. This happens to be true for me, and it got me thinking about a topic I’ve thought a lot about before.

As a Christian who would like to one day be married, what are my options? Attending a Christian college certainly helps, and the aforementioned question explains why we have the terms “ring by spring” and “getting my MRS.” There’s a pervasive feeling that there’s only so much time to find that special someone, and once you’re out in the real world your search multiplies in difficulty.

There is a culture of Christian young people, and as young people their search for that significant other is constantly manifesting itself. Bible studies for those in high school, colleges and careers groups for those a little bit older, both become hunting grounds for eligible dudes/ladies. A friend of mine, when talking about her church’s young adult group, related that the guys there basically gauged the dateability of every girl there before waiting around for new members.

This reveals a lot about world views, the Christian, and, by reversing this view, the non-Christian. In one there is the expectation to stay pure and for your future spouse to do the same. In the other the assumption is that the person you will marry will have had sexual partners [though hopefully not too many]. The former is plagued by the fear that they may not find the one. The latter suffers the same phobia, yet finds itself with quite a few more options.

I haven’t done the math, so I can’t tell you with complete certainty that Christians are searching more desperately than their peers of alternate beliefs. I can, however, tell you that I can definitely wait a few more years before marriage becomes something I seriously think about. But I can’t speak for anyone else.

From Puppetry to Pod Races

I love alliteration. It’s short, it’s snappy, and it has a lot of mental sticking power. I’ve used it in the title of my interview with the Batgirl of San Diego, and when I named my self-indulgent essay comparing StarCraft and Barbara Kingsolver’s literature. This time around, I find it appropriate to utilize this literary technique in bringing attention to Star Wars.

It’s not news to the movie fan or the Star Wars fanatic that there have been quite a few changes made in the rereleases of the classic films, old content packaged in a new format. A few of the alterations seem pretty logical [the Rebels’ computers are looking pretty dated when compared to the holograms of the prequel trilogy], while others are downright upsetting [replacing Sebastian Shaw with Hayden Christensen in the Jedi ghost scene]. With Blu-ray being the new format on the block, a new change has been announced for the rerelease of The Phantom Menace.

Episode I can be remembered as the last of the Star Wars films to feature the diminutive Master Yoda using puppetry. There are no backflips or lightsabre fights with bearded Sith lords that nobody likes, just a short green alien with a penchant for reversing the order of his sentences, sitting down. After The Phantom Menace CGI was used to render the Jedi Grand Master.

On the left, Yoda as he appeared in 2009. On the right, Yoda on Blu-ray.

While this alteration causes the first of the prequels to fit in with the following two films, what it loses is a bit of its connection with the original trilogy. Yoda was voiced by Frank Oz, but he was also controlled by the man, who acted as a puppeteer for the first four films. While he’s certainly more expressive, he lacks a lot of the signature movements that once characterized him.

But what does this say about film? Green screens are being used more than ever before, forcing actors to show fear, confusion, and even awe while standing in front of immense emerald sheets. While technology has been moving ever forward in delivering realistic CGI, it’s apparent that it still has a way to go.

Consider the animatronic dinosaurs in Spielberg’s Jurassic Park. Created in the early 90s,  it featured creatures that looked real because they were. They had actual size and weight and texture and you could have touched them if you were there. Compare Neytiri from James Cameron’s Avatar with Ron Perlman as Hellboy from the eponymous film. The difference from the left to the right is that of computer generated imagery to simple prosthetics and makeup.

In an age when CGI seems to be taking over it’s always a pleasant surprise to see the more traditional techniques, be they puppetry or prosthetics, to help suspend the audience’s disbelief. When Hollywood’s pumping out real-world-meets-animated-characters films like The Smurfs, we can all thank God for Jason Segel.

Why I Disagree With Dota 2

Gamers everywhere were rejoicing yesterday as Valve released the first official footage of their newest game, DotA 2, made more special by the fact that the footage was from a livestream of the first DotA 2 tournament ever.

To back up a little, DotA, or Defence of the Ancients, is a custom game mode for the Blizzard-made RTS WarCraft III. Although many mods of the game exist, there are none that can compare to the popularity that DotA has with the gaming community. Influential to the point that it has spawned its own genre of video game,and been the inspiration for the similar titles League of Legends and Heroes of Newerth, DotA has actually become a  feature at worldwide tournaments, including the Asian World Cyber Games. To say that this is just another mod is an immense understatement.

For a bit of background on Valve, they have been the brilliant minds that havebrought us titles such as Half-Life, Left 4 Dead, and Portal. For the most part these are all games that are saturated with narrative and feature inventive, innovative gameplay. Valve has long been seen as a company that deeply cares for its fans, their constant release of new content for the [now free to play] shooter Team Fortress 2 being a prime example.

On October 13th of last year, Valve announced that they were creating DotA 2. IceFrog, a modder who maintained and developed the original game was hired by the company in 2009 and has since been working on the sequel.

That last word is one of my first issues with the game. The very usage of the name “DotA” with the addition of the “2” seems to state that this is yet another sequel to another already-owned property, such as Half-Life 2. This could not be further from the truth. While IceFrog did help a great deal in furthering the game, as a mod it belongs to the community that helped create it, the hundreds of men and women who suggested heroes or contributed icons or penned lore for the heroes they loved playing as. The name, of course, was chosen simply for familiarity, which brings me to my next point.

In order to ease players into the transition from the WarCraft III mod to the new and improved DotA 2 Valve needed more than just a title. According to Game Informer:3

DotA-Allstars‘ roster of 100+ heroes is being brought over in its entirety. The single map games take place on is functionally identical to the one that you can download for free today in the Warcraft III mod. Items, skills, and upgrade paths are unchanged. Some hero skills work slightly better due to being freed from the now-ancient Warcraft III engine, but Dota 2 will be instantly familiar to any DotA player.

Along with the heroes being brought over were their models. Since the world editor in Warcraft III only allowed for so much customization, unit models from the game itself were used in DotA. Instantly recognizable after years of playing the mod, Valve chose to make their heroes look as close to their blockier counterparts as possible.

To the left is an example of the icons used for the heroes, the ones on the left from DotA and the ones on the right from DotA 2.

The first, Prophet [known as Nature’s Prophet in Dota 2], features the same beard and horns, as well as facial tattoos. What was even more disconcerting, however, was the name of the image file for the latter, “furion_lg.png.” Furion is the name of the original hero, and is actually taken from a character in WarCraft III itself.

The second is known by Dazzle in both games, and clearly depicts a troll-ish kind of creature with a skull face tattoo. The colouration is extremely similar.

The third, called Storm Spirit by both, gets only slightly more original. Instead of portraying a humanoid panda DotA 2 instead changes the character to a human, albeit wearing extremely similar garb.

Valve has always been a company that pumped out solid, original content, and watching the tournament replays of this game made me deeply upset. The Anti-Mage attacks just as he always did with long, curved blades on each hand, Leshrac gallops swiftly forward on all fours, torso rocking back rhythmically as usual.

I could point out countless similarities, especially to character design that has always been distinctly Blizzard’s, but I won’t. The fact of the matter is that the easiest way to familiarize a gamer with something new is to show them exactly what they’ve seen before. A muscular red orc with a topknot hefting an immense axe remains exactly that, even with sleeker graphics.

DotA 2 is a game that has a very large number of players waiting to get their hands on it. The genre is only growing more and more popular, and Valve has found a way to successfully cash in on that market. It’s just a shame that this was the way that they chose to do it.

1. See? There’s even a Wikipedia page on it! <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dota_genre>

2. Seriously, no strings attached. <http://www.tf2.com/freetoplay/>

3.  Source to this and much of the other facts in this post: <http://www.gameinformer.com/b/features/archive/2010/10/13/dota-2-announced-details.aspx>