Hallelujah friends, for this is a joyous day!
In case you haven't heard, a bill has finally been introduced into Australian parliament to allow the classification of R18+ on games!
Years! Years we have been fighting for this - over ten years according to the article in the technology section of News.com.au - and finally it's happening.
It is an actively foolish thing that this country, wherein there is an R18+ rating for film and television, has no such rating for video games - a landscape which contains just as much if not more violence and mature content, especially within the last decade. In the words of IGN's Luke Reilly, “This has been such a tiresome issue for so many years; it’s great to finally have some real light at the end of the tunnel".
Yes, Luke, it is nice.
The main issue seemed to be that people thought young players would "have more access" to R18+ material if the rating were to be introduced, but this concept is ludicrous. They have the same exposure to R18+ films and television, but we still have them. And kids will find a way to sneak in to watch them, too. But for some reason, that is acceptable behaviour for film and TV and not for games. Why?
It seems that the government, and those lobbying against the rating change, see video games as something that only young people do. Something that is juvenile. Something that is not R18+ material. Well, they are wrong. Those people who were young gamers when gaming first came around? They're adults now. They want to play games that are adjusted to their level of maturity. And yes, you can be mature and still play games.
And parents, if you do not want your children playing these games (just like you
didn't want them watching those films or TV series) then it's simple: do not buy it for them. Pay attention to what your children are playing or, better yet, pay attention to what you are buying them. Don't just give in when they want Hack and Slash 4: The Bloodening, if that game has an R18+ rating, it is not suitable for them. If you buy it for them and you don't like it when you discover what it is months later, it's your own fault.
There, I said it.
I'm glad to finally see the government seeing reason on this topic and I hope that this bill passes. Because, honestly, I like to do things legally. I don't want to live in a place where if I want to play the original Left 4 Dead 2 - with all its bloody, gory glory - I'd either have to buy a copy from America, or download an illegal, hacked version. And I don't really want to do either of those things. I want to support the Australian businesses who sell them.
Come on, guys. Let's get this one right.
Mahalo.
Wednesday, February 15, 2012
Monday, February 13, 2012
Gaming Loses One of Its Own
Though you may not know who he was - and it is likely that a lot of you didn't - Adam Adamowicz designed gaming worlds that most gamers know and fell in love with. Most notably those of Fallout 3 and the new worldwide time-consumer Skyrim.
Yesterday, he lost a fight to cancer and passed away. The gaming community has lost a truly great talent and I would like to extend my greatest sympathies to his friends, family and coworkers at this difficult time. To quote TechPowerUp:
Yesterday, he lost a fight to cancer and passed away. The gaming community has lost a truly great talent and I would like to extend my greatest sympathies to his friends, family and coworkers at this difficult time. To quote TechPowerUp:
The industry and the world has truly lost a great visionary and no matter what the next Fallout or Oblivion game will be, it will be a little less wonderful because of it.Mahalo.
Sunday, February 12, 2012
Search Terms
That awkward moment when some traffic comes to your blog from the search terms "screw my wife" and "the best screw of all time".
Sigh.
Maybe I should consider a name change? Yay or nay?
Mahalo.
Sigh.
Maybe I should consider a name change? Yay or nay?
Mahalo.
The AMAZING Spider-Man
So I just had my second film nerdgasm of the week. Hopefully those of you keeping track of the upcoming superhero films are aware of the new Spiderman adaptation, The Amazing Spider-Man directed by the aptly named Marc Webb. If you are not then you must immediately check out the trailer.
Webb is a fairly unknown director, but you'd recognize his name if you've seen (500) Days of Summer or the video clip to Green Day's "Waiting".
Now, when I first heard tell of a new Spiderman film being made, I was skeptical. Skeptical because we had had three mediocre films prior to this in an attempt at a reboot of the franchise. Now, director Sam Raimi (Evil Dead) did a pretty good job with the first film - the origin story, of course - and Tobey Maguire did a fairly good job as nerd Peter Parker. Strangely, this does not equate to a great Spiderman.
The second film was sub-par and the third was an insult - especially to those legion of us who couldn't wait to see Venom finally on screen.
Because of all of this and more I was wary of the (gritty) rebooting of a franchise that was barely a decade old. Of course, it didn't help that there were rumours that Twilight star Robert Pattinson would be taking over Maguire's role as Peter Parker.
With the new trailer, however, there is hope. The Social Network's Andrew Garfield is playing the titular character, with Emma Stone playing his first love - not redhead Mary-Jane but blonde Gwen Stacy. That's right, folks, they're sticking to the comics!
The film seems to be taking its source material very seriously, and I couldn't be happier. And yes, they are making the web-slinging a result of the Parker-made web shooters - not from glands on his wrists! Hurray! Accuracy!
Finally, I am looking forward to Spiderman again!
Mahalo.
Webb is a fairly unknown director, but you'd recognize his name if you've seen (500) Days of Summer or the video clip to Green Day's "Waiting".
Now, when I first heard tell of a new Spiderman film being made, I was skeptical. Skeptical because we had had three mediocre films prior to this in an attempt at a reboot of the franchise. Now, director Sam Raimi (Evil Dead) did a pretty good job with the first film - the origin story, of course - and Tobey Maguire did a fairly good job as nerd Peter Parker. Strangely, this does not equate to a great Spiderman.
The second film was sub-par and the third was an insult - especially to those legion of us who couldn't wait to see Venom finally on screen.
Because of all of this and more I was wary of the (gritty) rebooting of a franchise that was barely a decade old. Of course, it didn't help that there were rumours that Twilight star Robert Pattinson would be taking over Maguire's role as Peter Parker.
With the new trailer, however, there is hope. The Social Network's Andrew Garfield is playing the titular character, with Emma Stone playing his first love - not redhead Mary-Jane but blonde Gwen Stacy. That's right, folks, they're sticking to the comics!
The film seems to be taking its source material very seriously, and I couldn't be happier. And yes, they are making the web-slinging a result of the Parker-made web shooters - not from glands on his wrists! Hurray! Accuracy!
Finally, I am looking forward to Spiderman again!
Mahalo.
Saturday, February 11, 2012
Robert Kirkman vs. Tony Moore Over Walking Dead
So here it is, the newest insanity to come out of the film news press; artist Tony Moore is suing former collaborator and childhood friend Robert Kirkman over proceeds and royalties for The Walking Dead. Moore is claiming that he was "swindled" by Kirkman into signing over his interest in The Walking Dead TV series and now isn't receiving any royalties.
Let's ignore the fact that Moore didn't believe that the TV series would take off and so willingly put forward the contract he is now in to give Kirkman the rights to the show and its proceeds. Moore also stopped drawing, inking and grey-toning the comic book series after issue SIX, being replaced by artist Charlie Adlard (who continues to do the series). Sure, Moore continues to do the covers and is owed for this work, but he has not been "swindled" out of anything.
Kirkman told the Hollywood Reporter:
So, the story seems to be that the creator of the franchise was approached about making a TV show out of his comic book. The artist and collaborator didn't believe in the project and put forward the contract within which they are currently bound - in which he does receive royalties from the TV show. The show then becomes a sensation and the creator is shot forward into fame and fortune and the artist feels he was swindled.
I'm sorry, but that is simply ridiculous. I cannot believe someone with Moore's talent and reputation would have the gall to put forward such a lawsuit and damage himself and Kirkman with the claims he is making. Face it, Moore, you signed away your rights - with legal council present for both you and Kirkman, on a contract you agreed on - and now that it's popular, you want your piece of the pie. Grow up.
Mahalo.
Let's ignore the fact that Moore didn't believe that the TV series would take off and so willingly put forward the contract he is now in to give Kirkman the rights to the show and its proceeds. Moore also stopped drawing, inking and grey-toning the comic book series after issue SIX, being replaced by artist Charlie Adlard (who continues to do the series). Sure, Moore continues to do the covers and is owed for this work, but he has not been "swindled" out of anything.
Kirkman told the Hollywood Reporter:
The lawsuit is ridiculous, we each had legal representation seven years ago and now he is violating the same contract he initiated and approved and he wants to misrepresent the fees he was paid and continues to be paid for the work he was hired to do. Tony regularly receives payment for the work he did as penciler, inker and for gray tones on the first six issues of The Walking Dead comic series and he receives royalties for the TV show, to assert otherwise is simply incorrect.Kirkman is also, let's not forget, the creator of the series - as all the inside comic-book credits point out - and Moore as responsible for "penciler, inker, gray tones".
So, the story seems to be that the creator of the franchise was approached about making a TV show out of his comic book. The artist and collaborator didn't believe in the project and put forward the contract within which they are currently bound - in which he does receive royalties from the TV show. The show then becomes a sensation and the creator is shot forward into fame and fortune and the artist feels he was swindled.
I'm sorry, but that is simply ridiculous. I cannot believe someone with Moore's talent and reputation would have the gall to put forward such a lawsuit and damage himself and Kirkman with the claims he is making. Face it, Moore, you signed away your rights - with legal council present for both you and Kirkman, on a contract you agreed on - and now that it's popular, you want your piece of the pie. Grow up.
Mahalo.
OK GO - New Undisputed Masters of the Video Clip
It's likely that a lot of you have not heard of the band OK GO. What is likely, however, is that you have seen their video clips. No, really. Trust me, you have seen this video clip for their song "Here it Goes Again". I'll give you a hint, it has treadmills in it.
If you haven't seen that one, odds are you've probably seen this one for the song "This too Shall Pass" with the Rube Goldberg machine. Or maybe you've even seen their version of the Muppet Show theme!
If you haven't seen any of those, it's still possible that you've seen this clip, for their new song "Needing/Getting".
And really, if you haven't seen any of those, where have you been the past few years? Clearly not on YouTube.
The beauty of OK GO's video clips is clear and I want to go so far as to say that they are the new masters of the video clip art-form, surpassing the previous masters Green Day - who kind of dropped the ball with "Wake Me Up When September Ends". Don't get me wrong, I love the band, but that clip was not very good.
OK GO have taken the video clip back to its origins as a piece of video art. There is nary a sign of the band playing their songs because we as an audience know that they have to lipsync anyway, so why bother? They have created performance pieces with their videos that eclipse most others, doing something newer instead of story clips or overly post-modern jobs.
I congratulate this band on not only some incredibly catchy and awesome tunes, but for their constant construction of intricate and fantastic video clips. Now, okay, go! Watch!
Mahalo.
If you haven't seen that one, odds are you've probably seen this one for the song "This too Shall Pass" with the Rube Goldberg machine. Or maybe you've even seen their version of the Muppet Show theme!
If you haven't seen any of those, it's still possible that you've seen this clip, for their new song "Needing/Getting".
And really, if you haven't seen any of those, where have you been the past few years? Clearly not on YouTube.
The beauty of OK GO's video clips is clear and I want to go so far as to say that they are the new masters of the video clip art-form, surpassing the previous masters Green Day - who kind of dropped the ball with "Wake Me Up When September Ends". Don't get me wrong, I love the band, but that clip was not very good.
OK GO have taken the video clip back to its origins as a piece of video art. There is nary a sign of the band playing their songs because we as an audience know that they have to lipsync anyway, so why bother? They have created performance pieces with their videos that eclipse most others, doing something newer instead of story clips or overly post-modern jobs.
I congratulate this band on not only some incredibly catchy and awesome tunes, but for their constant construction of intricate and fantastic video clips. Now, okay, go! Watch!
Mahalo.
You Sunk Battleship
I don't know if you guys have seen this, but I think you should. Not because it looks good, but because it looks so damn stupid.
That is the trailer for the upcoming film adaptation of the game Battleship by Hasbro. No, I'm not kidding and I wish I was. Surprisingly, no, it isn't directed by Michael Bay, but by Peter Berg - director of the unfortunately unimpressive film Hancock.
Is this really happening? And if so, why? I think Battleship is as unfilmable a game as you can get besides Monopoly, and even that has (substantiated) rumours of a film adaptation by Ridley freaking Scott. Yes, the guy who gave us Gladiator.
Looking at the trailer for Battleship, it frightens me that there are such talents as Alexander Skarsgård, Liam Neeson and Peter MacNicol. Liam Neeson doesn't need an IMDB link, you all know who he is! I mean, I know actors have to do some films for fun, but really? The Battleship movie? Come on. It just looks like a poor man's Transformers - and even those films weren't very good!
Mahalo.
That is the trailer for the upcoming film adaptation of the game Battleship by Hasbro. No, I'm not kidding and I wish I was. Surprisingly, no, it isn't directed by Michael Bay, but by Peter Berg - director of the unfortunately unimpressive film Hancock.
Is this really happening? And if so, why? I think Battleship is as unfilmable a game as you can get besides Monopoly, and even that has (substantiated) rumours of a film adaptation by Ridley freaking Scott. Yes, the guy who gave us Gladiator.
Looking at the trailer for Battleship, it frightens me that there are such talents as Alexander Skarsgård, Liam Neeson and Peter MacNicol. Liam Neeson doesn't need an IMDB link, you all know who he is! I mean, I know actors have to do some films for fun, but really? The Battleship movie? Come on. It just looks like a poor man's Transformers - and even those films weren't very good!
Mahalo.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)