|
Post by Dizzy D on Sept 14, 2017 12:54:59 GMT -5
I liked Witcher 2 a lot (3 is better though, but then again 3 was one of those GOTY candidates for loads of critics). 3 pretty much expects you sided with Roche though, even if you import a game where you sided with Iorveth, you'll meet up with Roche and Kes and not Iorveth and Saskia.
- If you side with Iorveth you go the other side of the battlefield in Chapter 2 (the city of dwarves and elves, lead by a Joanne of Arc-style liberator). You really miss a lot of things when you play only half the game and that influences your choices. Whether you chose to spare the dragon at the end for instance, will probably change a lot if you sided with Roche or with Iorveth.
Chapter 3 also has several choices to make (saving the king's last remaining heir (if you side with Roche), saving Triss or saving Philippa (if you side with Iorveth)). I think that chapter works a lot better if you have read the books, because the Lodge of Sorceresses would be mostly unfamiliar to people who have only played the games (apart from Trish and maybe one or two others depending on your path).
I really like that you have the choice whether to fight the endboss or not, because there are enough reasons to decide that you wouldn't.
|
|
|
Post by Dizzy D on Sept 11, 2017 5:17:21 GMT -5
Beat Trails in the Sky Second Chapter. Overall I enjoyed it a lot, but I kinda miss the low-level adventures of the first.
SPOILERS for those who want to play this game
In the first game you deal with other humans and some wild non-intelligent wild beasts and robots/tanks/planes controlled by humans as your enemies. In this one, the main villains are still set up well. The enemy organisation has various boss characters, who return at various points and all of them have links to the party members. For a JRPG this is pretty well executed, but once you hit higher levels you get a dragon and a boss character that takes on an Angel-form and that's standard JRPG fare.
There is also a big seperation between story and game; various character in the party pretend to be not as powerful/skilled as they really are. Fair enough, but if you go 1-on-1 with a boss character in an even match that you and 3 other team members were hardly beating 5 seconds ago, it's weird and the game overdoes this quite a lot (at least 3 characters that I can think off). Als you receive 2 party members at the end of the game at a point where I really wonder if anybody would take them along instead of the party members they ran around with for the entire game. (Maybe they are there for people with low-level characters to give them a boost to catch up?)
Still, a recommended game, but it's a direct continuation of the first (the second chapter in the title is completely correct: this is one big story in 3 chapters. Each game does have an ending and this game does not end on a big cliffhanger like the first, but still leaves some plotlines open for the third game to continue the story.
|
|
|
Post by Dizzy D on Sept 6, 2017 6:55:04 GMT -5
So...No good X-Men books out there? Is Marvel indeed treating the property like the black sheep of the family due to movie licensing issues with Fox? X-Men Gold is pretty good... it's as close to the 'golden Age' of the the team as you get... it's Kitty as leader of an old school line up. X-Men Blue is the time-lost original five... if you're interested in that. I haven't been interested in Uncanny Avengers since the original storyline, so I can't help you there. Cable with James Robinson I tried an issue, didn't do anything for me. I haven't tried any of the others I gave Generation X 2 issues before dropping it, that one was very disappointing, especially as I liked all the characters and the idea, just not the execution. Wolverine (Laura) has been good (IMHO). Haven't read Old Man Logan, but Lemire is one of the better writers. Haven't tried Iceman (no interest in a solo-Iceman title), Jean (no interest in a solo-Jean title) or Weapon X (no interest in a Greg Land title).
|
|
|
Post by Dizzy D on Sept 6, 2017 4:55:09 GMT -5
Non-superhero new stories: some of DC's Hanna Barbara revivals have turned out be interesting, especially the Flintstones which was very, very good.
I'm quite enjoying the new Doom Patrol.
Really enjoying Coates' Black Panther, but it takes a bit to get started.
|
|
|
Post by Dizzy D on Sept 6, 2017 4:48:25 GMT -5
'The Last Wish' is the first book, right? It is, but it's a collection of short stories (the first few books are, the other books are one big story.)
|
|
|
Post by Dizzy D on Sept 5, 2017 8:53:40 GMT -5
The best thing about the Witcher series is that you can see how much CD Project Red improves with each title they released (and how much aftercare they gave to each title). Witcher 1 was still very rough (mostly due to having to work with the Aurora Engine), so I hope you'll enjoy 2 and 3 even more.
I can also recommend the books the series is based upon.
|
|
|
Post by Dizzy D on Sept 4, 2017 2:40:00 GMT -5
I applaud Ed Skrein for stepping back and letting somebody else take the role. There are few roles for Asian(-American) actors as it is. The biggest problem with Finn Jones being cast for Iron Fist is that the decision was defended by Marvel as the best choice for the role, but they cast somebody with no martial arts experience and limiting acting ability. Casting a Chinese actor would be another stereotype, but there were enough other options.
The Marvel Cinematic Universe started in 2008. Nearly 10 years later and we still have had no non-male, non-white main character (the TV/Netflix part is better due to Agent Carter, Jessica Jones and Luke Cage for instance). Probably because basically all popular comic characters were made in the 40s or 60s and comic fans are about the most resistant to change of any group I know (which kinda makes sense, sports, music, TV and movie would have to go through more effort to change the way the world outside is than a comic, where an artist or colourst can just draw an entire crowd in present day New York City as being white.) so we get John Byrne's Aryan Avengers in the 90s. They are finally getting around to doing a Black Panther and Captain Marvel (Carol Danvers) movie, but you kinda expected that some of those would be a bit higher on the list than say... Ant-Man? Part of this was due to Perlmutter, but he's just one part in the big machine. Part of it was due to a lot of Marvel characters movie rights not being with Marvel (like the X-Men, who are pretty much the most diverse group Marvel has.)
|
|
|
Post by Dizzy D on Aug 25, 2017 15:01:20 GMT -5
Still making my way through a ton of sci-fi stuff, but just finished Dune Messiah. I liked it, but it felt more like a postscript to Dune itself than a full standalone story. Herbert introduced some interesting new ideas, but seemed to take a step back form some of the ideas he put forward in Dune itself. I need to track down a copy of Children of Dune, but I am going to take a little break on Dune before I do and get through some of the other stuff piled up. -M The Dune series rapidly dwindles in quality. I still know quite a few fans of God Emperor of Dune though, so you might want to stay with the series till that entry. Still taking a break is always a good idea.
|
|
|
Post by Dizzy D on Aug 25, 2017 6:35:16 GMT -5
A good old one to show how unintuitive percentages are for people. Key is the solid part of the potato will not change.
So you have 100 pounds of potatoes of which 1% is solid "potato (so 1 pound).
At the you have 2% solid potato (still 1 pound). So 100% is 50*1 pound = 50 pounds.
|
|
|
Post by Dizzy D on Aug 17, 2017 7:35:26 GMT -5
I've been watching a few youtube videos trying to explain why the movie failed. Most of them were presenting ridiculous arguments. a) Obscure source material. What? A movie is now made popular (or not) based on the recognizability of its source material? As Wolfgang Pauli would say, this is so out there that "it's not even wrong!" I very much doubt that the moviegoers who made Guardians of the galaxy, Pirates of the Caribbean or A history of violence big successes were that familiar with the comics or the park rides that inspired them. People don't care about the source material. They want to be entertained by what they see on the screen, no matter where it came from. b) Lack of big name stars. Maybe there are people who actually go to see action CGI movies because Tom Cruise or Samuel Jackson is in them. Maybe. I just can't fathom it. That type of genre movie is exciting because of the story it tells and the outlandish things it shows. Did anyone really go see Avatar just because Sigourney Weaver was in it??? Who was famous in Star Wars apart from two supporting characters? If such people exist, they must be in the minority. c) Nobody knew what to make of the movie because the trailer didn't make it clear. Oh, come on!!! This is clearly a SF romp with tons of CGI, in which dashing heroes are supposed to save the world (or some world anyway). Everybody knows the score!!! We can practically recite the script just from watching the trailers! Valerian suffered the same fate as John Carter a few years ago. A few critics, for God knows what reason, decided they didn't like it and the movie opened with bad press. That means the movie was doomed, even while equivalent (or worse) CGI-laden, action/adventure fantasy flicks were given a pass. People didn't go, and since there's one blockbuster every other week nowadays they just went to see something else instead, thinking they might catch Valerian later on Netflix. It's a pity really. Now, more than ever, we're stuck with sequels, prequels and reboots of films that made money. That people having actually watched Valerian will say "well, it really wasn't that bad! I actually enjoyed it a lot!" is scant consolation for the producers who lost a hundred million dollars. Producers who will then have to watch Transformers XIX and Star Wars: Boss Nass rake in the money! I'll be a bit more kind to both movie and general audience: there are a lot of good movies out right now, so competion is fierce for people who only go to see 1 or 2 movies a month, so Valerian has to attract more attention than say... Dunkirk, which has a famous director or Spider-Man, which has name-recognition. Movie success and movie quality are only tenuously connected (Hello, Transformers franchise), so in a busy movie season like this you'd need something to draw attention, whether it is a director, actor, visuals, source material or something else. (Example: for me I had time for 2 movies in the cinema last month: going to the cinema takes a certain time investment that just putting on Netflix or so, doesn't. So I picked Valerian, because I love the source material and I picked Baby Driver because I love the director. I'm sure there were more great movies out there that month, but I didn't have the time to see them.) So what's there in the trailers for the vast audience unfamiliar with Valerian: not much, really. You are dismissive of point C. that the trailer was not very clear, but the trailers were just not very good for this movie. The trailers don't do any great job of selling us on the world or the relationship between the two main characters (not going into how that relationship was just so much better in the comics compared to the walking HR disaster that movie Valerian is). We get brightly coloured sci-fi environments and CGI monsters, which may draw in some, but it has been done before, quite often, so it's not a unique draw for most of the audience and we get nothing else from the trailer. A bit more of the way Valerian and Laureline work together (more attention to Laureline in general for that matter) to sell our heroes to the audience. So, we lose a lot of audience already at that point. The bit more interested potential audience member will then look into the movie a bit more: why should he or she spend money on this? We get no plotline from the trailers, just unconnected action scenes. The actors are relatively newcomers or not big names (having Rihanna as one of the big names doesn't do it any favours either). It has Luc Besson, but the Fifth Element's reception was already mixed (and that one did have a major action star in its cast) and Leon was a long time ago and a very different movie. Since then Besson hasn't made any big successes really; Lucy was mostly coasting on Scarlet Johansen's popularity. So those youtube videos you saw were not exactly wrong, but they were not completely right either: None of the points you mention are indeed the big reason why a movie has success or not, but each of those movies had other things going for it: - Guardians didn't have recognisable source material, but it had the Marvel logo that came from a string of successes, well-cut trailers that set up the premises of the movie (rag-tag band of misfits save the galaxy) and raised interest (use of older, but recnogisable music, some good jokes). Its actors were not A-list, but still relatively well known. - Pirates was a gamble, but it had relatively little competition when it came out and we were not sick of Johnny Depp yet at that point. Also it had a great cast and visuals. Again trailers set up the story well. - History of Violence: The odd duck in your list of movies. It was a critical success and it definitely made its money back, but it's smaller, more quiet movie. Drawing on the fame of its director and its major actors (it has to, because it has no amazing visuals or hook to draw on, the actors do all the heavy lifting). - Avatar: it had the 3D gimmick, which was new (well, new again) at that point and it had James Cameron, director of several of the greatest hits of all time. Like Valerian, its trailers were colourful and filled with weird aliens, but it was never the hook for that movie. - Star Wars: Star Wars success was a bit of a suprise at the time. It was a time when movies and marketing worked differently from today, Valerian is one of many sci-fi action movies released this exact summer, while Star Wars was pretty much unique at the time. Your conclusion that we therefore will only get prequels, sequels or reboots is a leap: just look at the success of The Martian or Arrival (keeping it to just sci-fi movies). Valerian underperformed for a variety of reasons; it was not a bad movie, it probably deserved better, but I also had problems with the movie, so if a critic didn't like it, I can quite understand that.
|
|
|
Post by Dizzy D on Aug 17, 2017 6:39:38 GMT -5
Finished up Kill or Be Killed Volume 2: whole feeling: ...eh... It's Brubaker/Philips so it's technically outstanding as usual, but I don't feel the second volume adds much to the first volume. Compared to the Fade-Out where I was ambivalent on the first volume and then completely drawn in for the 2nd and 3rd.
Also just bought the Humble Bundle so I have a ton of G.I. Joe and Transformers comics from IDW to go through.
|
|
|
Post by Dizzy D on Aug 17, 2017 6:31:29 GMT -5
I've been told that the most faithful adaptation of a comic book story on film is Spawn. I haven't read the comic or seen the movie, so I can't comment. Having seen it, I think Sin City is still the most faithful comic book adaption.
|
|
|
Post by Dizzy D on Aug 9, 2017 9:50:51 GMT -5
I've lived in the US during 2003 and bought quite a few comics during that time (it made quite a difference cost-wise). Not wanting to take them back home in my luggage (except for the ones, I really, really liked). I used an M-bag to sent them home. It took about 6 weeks and the box I used to package them (I didn't package them very well, just put them in a box and taped that shut), was torn apart during shipping, so my comics arrived loose in the bag. As i was a poor student at the time and most of the books were 2nd floppies, I didn't mind too much, but if you want to use it, I'd make sure you package them well.
|
|
|
Post by Dizzy D on Aug 7, 2017 6:57:57 GMT -5
So working my way though the Kirby/Eisner humble bundle.
I've read so far:
Joe Casey's version of Captain Victory and Alex Ross' version of Captain Victory.
Of the two, the first I liked a lot (but I'm a big Casey fan, though the main draw here is Nathan Fox for me), while I found the second to be very boring. Keep in mind: I know nothing at all about Captain Victory. The concept sounds a bit like Captain Scarlet: the hero that can't die, so keeps throwing himself at the enemy. Both series seem to have strong ties to the Fourth World as far as I can tell (Blackmass is basically Darkseid with the copyright painted over, right?), though Casey plays this connection up far more than Gates. Not sure what Ross role is in the title: Sterling Gates is listed as writer, Alex Ross as "story and art direction" (well, I get the second one, obviously) and Steve Scott as artist. The Casey version is a lot more abstract and complex (which is why I like it of course, with 2 clones being activated at the same time on different planets). It's short and I kinda want to see more of it. The Gates/Ross version feels... cold, like there is a plot here, but the characters are cyphers going through predictional motions and the art is standard 2000s/2010s superhero comicbook style.
I had hoped for more original Kirby/Eisner work in the bundle, though I'm also reading the books on early Marvel/Golden Age comics, so I still feel I got my money worth for the bundle.
|
|
|
Post by Dizzy D on Aug 7, 2017 2:01:22 GMT -5
The actor for Valerian also looks a bit younger than he actually is (he's in his early 30s, but looks like early 20s to me).
|
|