May 2013 – Page 2 – Colin McMahon

Comedy Resurrection: Arrested Development

Posted on May 27, 2013 by Colin McMahon

This is the first of a three-part series targeting television comedies that have risen from the dead for a chance at new laughs. I won’t say what the other two are but here’s a hint: they’re animated and both start with an “F”. As everyone knows, television is a tricky business. Creating a good show is no guarantee of success (just look at Firefly) whereas a crappy show with the right marketing can be a huge success (Here Comes Honey Boo Boo is an affront to be reality TV and humanity as a whole). So, sometimes good shows get cancelled. Arrested Development initially aired from 2003 t0 2006. During that time the show ran 53 episodes and garnered a loyal but small fan base. For that reason, the show was cancelled. It was a sad event but at the time, show creator Mitchell Hurwitz stated that he had “taken it as far as I felt I could as a series. I told the story I wanted to tell, and we were getting to a point where I think a lot of the actors were ready to move on.”

Fast forward seven years and I guess a lot changes. The explosion of Netflix for one. True, the company was founded in 1999 but it experienced huge growth in the first decade of the 21st century, taking it from a fledgling company to the frontier name is media streaming (funny story, Blockbuster refused to buy Netflix, remember Blockbuster? Proof of the importance of “adapt or die” in the media world). Through Netflix, many people who initially missed Arrested Development got a chance to experience it and the show developed a huge popularity. Popular enough to reunite the cast who had “moved on” and return a creator who felt he had already “told the story he wanted to tell”. So that’s enough of history, Arrested Development is back, the third series to air on Netflix (House of Cards and Hemlock Grove being the first two). The question becomes now: how is it?

It's been 8 years but the Bluth family is back. — It’s been 7 years but the Bluth family is back.

Let me say a disclaimer up front: I am not finished with the fourth season yet. So far I have watched the first seven episodes (roughly halfway through the fifteen episode season). As such, I cannot give a complete season overview. However, I have seen enough to note the main story and style structure of the new season. And I am pretty disappointed in the turn it has taken. This new season is not terrible but it strays from the formula that made Arrested Development such a funny series.

Let me quickly recap how the first three seasons of Arrest Development were structured: Michael Bluth (Jason Bateman) serves as the audience conduit (meaning he is the most relatable character) to the Bluths, a family of incredibly rich, out-of-touch-with-reality eccentrics who fritter about in nearly constant conflict with both each other and the outside world. They fluctuate constantly between loving and hating each other, making them very believable as a family with problems. More importantly than that, they are hilarious to watch with each other. The chemistry between the family created a ton of laughs and propelled the comedic engine that drove the series for the first three seasons. I say first three seasons because this structure no longer exists in the fourth season.

This style of advertising makes sense for the fourth season as each episode is driven by an individual rather than the family.

This is the largest disappointment. Each episode of the fourth season (so far) has focused on one family member. The episodes bridge the gap, giving the audience insight into what everyone has been up to in the seven years between Arrested Development‘s cancellation and revival. This has been done to explain the obvious age change (most noticeable with Michael Cera and Alia Shawkat). Does it make sense: sure. Was it needed: no.

There is a thing about television dramas, you watch them to see the evolution of a character, their growths and pitfalls. Their changes, it is a big part of every drama series and one of the key ways to measure success: does the audience get emotionally invested in the characters and how good is the payoff? This is not exactly true with comedies. Yes, the best comedies need relatable characters to make the jokes work, however, emotional investment is not needed to same extent. Arrested Development appears to have forgotten this.

I like watching the Bluths, I do. I think they are a very funny family. Haha – yes, relatable – no. To be blunt: I don’t care about Lindsey’s search for identity over the past seven years. I don’t care how Tobias has struggled to remain ignorant. Truth is, most of these characters are not very likeable with closer inspection. More than that, this new style of single focus draws attention to how one-note some of the humor is.

Tobias' unawareness is great once or twice an episode but when it is the focus of twenty minutes, it runs a little thin. — Tobias’ unawareness is great once or twice an episode but when it is the focus of twenty minutes, it runs a little thin.

This glaring problem has become more and more apparent as the season has progressed. I have yet to see an episode with the Bluth family. The focus is so strong on each character that the episode usually only features 1-2 members of the family with all other appearances feeling like cameos. And speaking of cameos: get ready to see every popular comic out there in the fourth season. Seth Rogen, Conan O’Brien, and Kristen Wiig are among the more notable appearances. Again, great to have more funny people on the show but not at the expense of screen time with the Bluth family. In addition, get ready to see everyone from the original run again.

Barry Zuckerkorn was a good side character who was naturally phased out in the initial run of Arrested Development. He is abruptly back in the new season. — Barry Zuckerkorn was a good side character who was naturally phased out in the initial run of *Arrested Development*. He is abruptly back in the new season.

There is a warning sign when a series relies too much on old characters for old laughs. It foretells a lack of direction or new ideas. This is another problem with the fourth season of Arrested Development. So far many of the comedic moments have been in the nature of “remember how funny this was?” A joke is never as funny the second time you hear it. Rather than continuing its identity, Arrested Development has clung to its old one (while at the same time missing what worked so well).

There is one final problem I would like to highlight in this new season, although to be fair it started in season three. Michael Bluth is no longer a relatable audience conduit. He has lost all of his believability as an everyman living with a crazy family, now he is simply a member of the crazy family. This occurred the moment of the Charlize Theron subplot in season three. For those unaware – Michael gets in a serious relationship with someone who is mentally challenged. How this is not immediately noticeable on say, the first serious conversation, is beyond me (yes the script navigates it but I have to believe they talked outside of the scenes shown).

So Michael is no longer someone to identify with. If his death as an everyman needed one more nail, it comes in the first episode of the new season. For twenty minutes, the audience gets to cringe at the awkwardness between Michael and his son. The plot is obvious and should take only seconds to resolve but instead the audience is treated to awkward moment after awkward moment (this is not my style of humor, I was never a huge fan of The Office). Michael looks like an idiot, a clueless idiot. He is no longer the suffering member enduring his family but has evolved into part of the problem. Is this character growth: maybe but not in the wisest direction (we already had plenty of socially clueless characters in this series).

Simple misunderstandings do not make for good season long plot points (at least in comedies). — Simple misunderstandings do not make for good season long gags.

In short, I am very worried for the future of Arrested Development. It has shown comparisons with another resurrected comedy show that did not turn out well (Family Guy – I’ll address this more later). I haven’t seen the whole season, but I shouldn’t have to for a comedy. I keep feeling like the show is planning some kind of pay off but, weren’t the jokes enough? Arrested Development is not a drama and it does not have strong enough characters to become one. So far it feels like creator, Mitchell Hurwitz’ comments were true back in 2006. The story has been told. Now they’re just doing it for some more dollars (while initially this was supposed to be one season and a movie to conclude the series, Netflix has recently backtracked for plans for more episodes).

So it’s okay. There are funny jokes to be sure. But I can’t help but feel like the outrageously funny period of Arrested Development has passed and these are the last few snickers before everyone leaves the room.

I cannot comment on whether or not the Bluths are still funny because I have yet to see the Bluths.

Thoughts? Comments? Am I full of it or onto something? Let me know now in the feedback section of this article.

About that Ending: Mass Effect 3

Posted on May 24, 2013 by Colin McMahon

I know, I know: beating a dead horse right? Who hasn’t talked about the ending of Mass Effect 3? Few video game stories last year were as widely discussed. From the overwhelming negativity at the initial ending(s) to the lessened reaction to the Extended Cut to the few people out there who were satisfied all along, everyone who played the Mass Effect trilogy has something to say about that ending. But, like most well-thought out reactions out there on the internet, it was instantaneous. Everyone had something to say THEN. What about now? It’s been a year and the game has changed in that time. Bioware added four single-player DLC (downloadable content) packs, three of which were targeted at changing the experience of the ending: Extended Cut, Leviathan and Citadel (not to forget From Ashes, which was available day one). So playing the game today, with this content installed, yields a vastly different experience than we received back on March 6, 2012. Having recently replayed Mass Effect 3 with all of this content, I have formed a new opinion on the ending(s) and surprise, surprise: I like it.

Warning – Here Be Spoilers

For those of you who don’t know, Mass Effect 3 concludes the story of Commander (insert first name here) Shepard. In the game, Shepard unites the various species of the universe against the apocalyptic force of the Reapers, a race of mammoth sentient machines bent on exterminating all advanced civilizations. Pretty damn epic, in other words. The Reapers are a great threat, with their larger-than-life presence they seem almost invincible… almost. The game ends with the final battle, Shepard confronts the main antagonist of the story (the Reaper AI manifested in the form of a child) and either destroys the Reapers, controls them or merges all organic and technological life into a new infused state of “technorganic” being. People (myself included) had problems with this.

So let’s start with one of the largest factors in the ending: the main antagonist. Christened “godchild” by angry fans, this creation felt like a walking deus ex machina (plot device existing solely to nicely tie up the story). Really it was a valid criticism. At the time there had been no other mention of this being at any other point in the trilogy (aside from an absurdly minor mention in Mass Effect – like Codex level obscure). In addition, Mass Effect 2 and 3 had been, up until that point, establishing a Reaper known as Harbinger as the main antagonist (the Illusive Man, despite being Martin Sheen, doesn’t count). Harbinger appeared to be the largest Reaper, head of their fleet and, possessed a major grudge against Commander Shepard. In other words: pretty good villain material.

Despite a strong physical presence at the game's climax, Harbinger feels very absent from Mass Effect 3. — Despite a strong, physical presence at the game’s climax, Harbinger feels very absent from *Mass Effect 3*.

Instead we got this guy:

I’m not going to get more into the reaction, there are already plenty of articles on it. Needless to say, people don’t like it when you introduce a new villain in the final minutes of the game who appears to have power over everything and all the answers to all the questions in the universe. That was a bad move by Bioware (and EA). Good thing is, they fixed it. While Harbinger is still absent, the DLC pack, Leviathan, establishes the lore of the “godchild” fairly early on in the game. The Catalyst (godchild’s official name) was an AI created by the Leviathan, an ancient race of super evolved beings. The Catalyst was created in an act of hubris, from the Leviathans believing themselves above every other organic race in the universe. So they created an AI program to help “balance the equation” with all the other AI-organic life conflicts in the universe. As you can guess, it didn’t work out so well for them. The program went rogue and created its own radical solution. As for the fate of the Leviathan, well, take a look at the last surviving member:

They were recycled into the first Reapers... done against their will by their own creation. — They were recycled into the first Reapers… done against their will by their own creation.

This greatly enhances the thematic value of the ending. Throughout the trilogy, the struggle between AI and organic life has been a central issue. There are multiple cases: the geth vs. the quarians and the creation of the character, EDI, being the two prime examples. The Leviathan DLC transformed an abrupt appearance into the conclusion of a theme, with the player’s Shepard being able to pick the resolution. In addition to this sequence, new dialogue options were added with the Catalyst by both the Extended Cut and Leviathan dlcs to allow for a fuller, more believable conversation.

With the “godchild” problem at least addressed (you can still find Bioware’s antagonist decision to be a poor choice but at least now it makes sense), a large section of the ending is improved. Another major issue was the lack of variety in the ending. I can remember reading, before Mass Effect 3 came out, that there were 16 different endings in the game. I was very excited – until I saw the original ending. Basically there are three variants: Shepard causes a massive explosion in every ending, it can be red, blue or green. Everything else (with the exception of very small details) plays out exactly the same. Doesn’t sound like 16 different endings to me. Thankfully, all of that was addressed in the Extended Cut DLC. Are the endings still similar: yes. Are they now different enough to be enjoyed and have the player choices felt: yep. So that’s two problems down.

Let’s end by talking about the Citadel DLC. This might be my favorite part in the trilogy overall. A large complaint with the Mass Effect 3 ending was the lack of character closure. Shepard is separated from his/her crew for the final confrontation and many players (myself included) felt that they didn’t get a chance to say good-bye to the characters they had come to care about. Now there’s this:

One of the main goals of the Citadel DLC is to throw a fun party for your crew. I'm not kidding. — One of the main goals of the Citadel DLC is to throw a fun party for your crew. I’m not kidding.

Bioware showed incredible care and intelligence in the release of this DLC. Of all the endings in Mass Effect 3 (the entire game is itself just one giant ending), this one feels the best. Players now have the ability to relax and have fun with their Normandy crew before it’s time to say good-bye at the end. The Citadel DLC is not driven by plot but by characters and that shows an essential of storytelling: the best stories don’t rely on their plots alone to be interesting.

Is the ending of Mass Effect 3 perfect: not by a long shot. Yet it is now satisfying enough that I didn’t feel cheated or let down in the final minutes. While Mass Effect 3 is overall the weakest game in the series, the blame for any storytelling shortcomings should not fall solely upon its shoulders. Indeed, despite being the overall best game in the series: Mass Effect 2 is the entry where the story seriously miss-stepped (the fact that a player can skip Mass Effect 2 entirely without missing any significant plot development is not a good sign). So if you were a fan of the trilogy but didn’t like the ending fist time through, do yourself a favor – get the DLC and experience it again. Except for Omega, I’m not kidding, stay far away from that waste of downloadable content.

Thoughts? Comments? Am I full of shit or onto something? Let me know now in the feedback section of this article.

Marketing Method: Xbox One

Posted on May 22, 2013 by Colin McMahon

As of yesterday the stage is now set for the eighth generation of video game consoles. From Nintendo, the 3Ds and the Wii U. From Sony, the PlayStation 4 and the PlayStation Vita. Now finally, during a press conference yesterday, Microsoft unveiled its newest home console: the Xbox One. The announcement and subsequent press conference have been the subject of the video game world for the past 24 hours. Namely: what does everyone think. What is the Xbox One? What games does it have? What about used games? Why is the third console called One? Do I need to use the new Kinect? For my part, I am going to do my best to cut through the hype and presentation to talk about what was said and, more importantly: why Microsoft said it. Every company has a plan and Microsoft has made their target goal apparent (just look at the name).

The brand new system pictured above. The new Kinect on top, then the console itself and finally the new controller design.

So let’s talk about that press conference. First thing’s first: the name. Microsoft announced its new console name after showcasing one desire above all others – they want the Xbox One to be the one system used for everything in your living room (as long as that everything doesn’t include playing Xbox 360 games). As long as you’re in the United States you can integrate the Xbox One with your television, allowing it essentially to replace your current network service (satellite and cable are going the way of the dodo) and, thanks to a new deal with the NFL, I believe you can watch football games in real time on it as well. That is, as long as you’re in the United States (Ammurrica!).

So does that mean you need a remote control? Of course not, that’s what the new Kinect (and controller) are for. The Kinect 2 (I think that’s its name at the moment) is always listening and will allow the Xbox One to be turned on a navigated by simple voice commands. Microsoft is marketing this as simple and streamlined and admittedly, it does sound so. However the idea of a camera/microphone device that is “always on” can be seen as unsettling and potentially invasive. Good news is that Microsoft promises security and privacy will be top priorities. This will ultimately boil down to an issue of consumer trust.

The new Kinect will allow for much more detailed and accurate body mapping. Again please keep in mind that this new and improved camera is always on.

That being said, it is great to see Microsoft making an effort to streamline the TV experience for Americans in 2013. Their service does look weak, however, compared to Nintendo’s currently offered TVii service, which is essentially the same thing and currently available to families in the USA, Canada and Japan (Europe is expected to launch later this year). But anyway, this is not comparison time, this is marketing time.

Further proof for Microsoft’s plan to usurp current television providers came in the announcement of Steven Spielberg’s live action television series, Halo. Please note that Spielberg is simply an executive producer for this series meaning his involvement may be as limited as essentially throwing money at it. The show will, of course, be based off of the popular Halo video games series that is Microsoft’s bread-and-butter exclusive. Microsoft appears to be marketing now in the vein of HBO (not that this is a bad thing). Might we expect a Gears of War or Fable television series if Halo proves financially successful: count on it.

There was no mistake in dropping the name, Game of Thrones, directly before unveiling Halo. — There was no mistake in dropping the name, *Game of Thrones*, directly before unveiling *Halo*.

Again all this coming to you through Microsoft’s grand plan to streamline and improve television. Next up let’s talk communications: Skype will be integrated into this new Xbox meaning that if you want to call and talk to someone during a game or show/movie, it will be possible to run it in the background. I’m not sure about anyone else but the idea of more interaction with the Xbox Live community can only be seen as a double-edged sword to me. Also… Nintendo is already doing this.

In case you ever wanted to talk to someone while watching Star Trek... but not just invite them over your house. — In case you ever wanted to talk to someone while watching *Star Trek*… but not just invite them over your house.

The final portion of Microsoft’s conference addressed what, to many, was the central issue: the games. With E3 only weeks away, Microsoft decided to play coy, simply teasing that the system had 15 exclusives on the way for the first year with 8 of them being new IP (intellectual property – basically meaning new franchises). The only exclusive (I think it’s exclusive) game reveal we received was Quantum Break, a video game from the makers of Max Payne and Alan Wake that appears to have a large focus on cheesy acting. Seriously watch the trailer – what is this? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_64IZNgxPKs. Also the new Call of Duty is coming to the Xbox One and it has a dog!

"Rello rand relcome ro Rall rof Ruty: Rhosts!" — “Rello rand relcome ro *Rall rof Ruty: Rhosts*!”

Do the games look noticeably more powerful: yes with an “if”. That “if” is the same cynical “if” that must accompany all early video game press, especially when new systems are concerned. If it really looks that good.

Now here is the last thing and the biggest. What information didn’t Microsoft market. What do they know about the Xbox One that they would only say when directly asked. Namely two issues have risen up and both of them have considerably irked the consumer base. First, as implied earlier, the Xbox One will not be able to play Xbox 360 games. This looks troubling on Microsoft as Nintendo’s Wii U is fully backwards compatible (plays all Wii games out of the box) and Sony is exploring an emulation service to allow people to continue their PS3 experience onto the PS4. In an age of economic recession, this is more damaging. People want to replace their 360s, not simply purchase another system.

The second tidbit is this: you will probably be charged an additional fee by Microsoft if you purchase and try to play used games. What this means is that the Xbox One discs are encoded to the first system they are played on. After that, the code kicks in and a fee will be charged. Obviously this was created as a maneuver against the selling of used games (which Microsoft, Sony, and Nintendo don’t see a penny for and are understandably peeved about). However, what this also prohibits is lending games. If my friend and I both have Xbox One’s and wish to lend each other games, we will still be charged. Again, this is not being received well.

So there you have it, marketing triumphs and pitfalls from day one of Xbox One’s life. How do I feel about this new system personally: I don’t know enough to have an opinion yet. I will be doing a side-by-side-by-side comparison of the big three after E3 comes and we have a bit more info. Initial impulses, however, leave me unimpressed. As said before, my television has already been streamlined thanks to my Wii U (as a free service I might add) so none of Xbox One’s features appeal to me on that end. The lack of backwards compatibility is also really condemning right now as I just don’t have room for another system (especially one as big as the Xbox One).

Now, lastly, about that name. Is it as bad as say, the Wii U? No, but it’s close. I don’t understand calling your new system a “one” when a “4” is being released the same year. Also your last system was called 360, so this new number is 359 digits lower. Yet it is still clearly a new system at least. Yay Microsoft for that one. Now comes the big question, knowing this: are you interested?