Colin McMahon

Marketing Method: Bethesda Softworks

Posted on April 26, 2013 by Colin McMahon

Video games, am I right? For many people out there, is there any product you would more eagerly shell out your hard earned dollars for? Most of us (myself included) love video games. The best ones are immersive, thought-provoking and wildly entertaining. Sure they cost sixty bucks but for hours of content. Few companies do a better job of backing that up than Bethesda. Think about the Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim, how many days did the average player sink into that? Bethesda Softworks, the video game publisher in charge of both the Elder Scrolls and Fallout series, is a top-of-the-line video game publisher. Most of their hits are really hits. We’re talking a AAA company. So why am I talking about them then: mainly to use as an example to reflect a much larger critique on the entire video game industry. My criticism is simple. Do you love Bethesda games? Can you not wait for Fallout 4 or the Elder Scrolls VI to come out? Well you should. You should wait. In fact you should wait until a year after they are out.

Now hold on there, we’re all eagerly awaiting Bethesda’s next big thing so why am I urging patience? Surely as fans, it is our job to go out there and show our monetary support for the video games we want. Yeah, Bethesda’s fans are very good to Bethesda. The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim has sold at least ten million copies (as of last July). There was even a super awesome collector’s edition released for all the true Dovahkiin out there. Here, take a look at it below:

This is cool looking product. I mean dragon statue, that’s it right there. More exactly, however, this collector’s edition included the following: a making-of-Skyrim DVD, The Art of Skyrim official book, a statue of Alduin (everyone’s favorite dragon to kill) an official copy of the Skyrim map and a free passcode entitling the diehard, day-one buyer to all of the Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim‘s upcoming dlc (downloadable content for those out there who don’t know the lingo) for absolutely no charge. Wait… scrap that last part. Only people who waited got that. Oh and they also only have to pay forty dollars: http://www.playstationlifestyle.net/2013/03/12/the-elder-scrolls-v-skyrim-game-of-the-year-edition-listed-by-amazon-dated-for-june-2013/.

The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim Game of the Year Edition, all dlc included for only two-thirds the price of the original game. This is not the first time Bethesda has done this. Indeed they have a very good track record since Morrowind. Oblivion, Fallout 3, and Fallout: New Vegas have all received a “Game of the Year Edition” that features every piece of dlc included in addition to the discounted price tag. Is Bethesda the only publisher pulling this trick: no. Is it unfair to the fans: yes. Is it our fault that they do this: yes.

Yeah true, so the person who waited doesn’t get the Alduin statue but really – what do you do with that? I’m curious to know. Really it just becomes a dust collector. The same can be true for any so-called “collector’s edition”. None of them ever include a free dlc pass (yes I acknowledge that some of them include codes for day one dlc but that’s it). Instead they all include stupid things that look cool enough to prompt a purchase but then are usually regretted upon later.

Collector's Edition: check. Good Edition... still waiting. — Collector’s Edition: check. Good Edition… still waiting.

Bethesda is very guilty on both these fronts. They love to release collector’s editions and they love to release Game of the Year editions. They are entitled to do this and they should so long as both options are financially rewarding. This falls on us as the market. We have to change how we purchase games. The way the market is structured now: day one purchasers always get the short end of the stick. For a culture that works on hype and generating excitement, all logic in the video game world demands patience.

For my part, I have become wise to Bethesda’s game. I paid twenty dollars for Fallout 3: Game of the Year Edition and do not regret that purchase. I am now also planning to purchase the Game of the Year edition for Fallout: New Vegas. Doing so will allow me to play the entire game (all dlc included) and not experience the glitches that were reported by all day one purchasers. This is not fair but it is economical.

Bethesda was behind the Doom 3 BFG Edition, which included Doom 3, both of its expansions as well as the original Doom and Doom II. — Bethesda was behind the *Doom 3 BFG Edition*, which included *Doom 3*, both of its expansions as well as the original *Doom* and *Doom II*.

Now you can counter this argument. For instance, not everyone buys dlc. This is true and there is definitely enough game for your buck in Bethesda games without paying for additional hours. So really my whole point with this article is to continue to encourage informed decision. This is an era of recession and economic uncertainty. If you still want to buy Fallout 4 on day one, more power to you, but understand that you will not be making a financially logical decision. Kudos to you though for supporting the video game industry. It’s great that Bethesda’s fans are so awesome to Bethesda… but shouldn’t Bethesda be awesome back to their fans? No, they shouldn’t. Companies are not our friends, they exist to make money so that they can continue to provide the products we desire. It’s our job to be smart about it, it’s our job to be smarter than publishers like Bethesda.

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

Clever Girl: Why the Stupidity of Jurassic Park Doesn't Stop it being a Classic

Posted on April 24, 2013 by Colin McMahon

Growing up there are few films I remember more fondly than Jurassic Park. I was only 4 when it came out in 1993 (just old enough to know how cool dinosaurs were) so my parents wouldn’t let me see it in theaters. But with two older brothers, rest assured we had that VHS copy as soon as it came out! Even then, there were two scenes in particular that I wasn’t allowed to watch as a child: Gennaro being eaten by the T-Rex and the scene with Samuel L. Jackson’s arm. My parents wanted to protect me. Did it work? No, of course I saw those scenes (I think I saw Evil Dead only a couple years later, I was not a sheltered child). Anyway, what’s the point of my telling you all this? So that you know how much I love Jurassic Park. I think I could quote you most of the movie. I think this is one of the most recent films that can be called a true cinematic classic and, watching it last night on the big screen in IMAX 3D, it occurred to me just how stupid Jurassic Park is.

Stupid is a generic word, what do I mean by it? What I mean is that there are a lot of scenes/sequences in Jurassic Park that make absolutely no sense. You, as the reader, may respond to this claim with: “it’s a movie about genetically created dinosaurs, it’s not supposed to be realistic”. Yes, Jurassic Park is science-fiction fantasy, but any author/director worth his/her salt would tell you: just because your characters exist in an unrealistic world does not entitle them to unrealistic action. I have no problem with the dinosaurs (horrible scientific inaccuracies included). What I take issue with is the sloppiness in several of the action sequences in the movie.

Let’s start with the Tyrannosaurus first, the largest problem in the movie (in more ways than one… sorry for that pun). The T-Rex is incredibly awesome and belongs to several of Jurassic Park‘s more iconic scenes. My issue is not with the film’s use of the actual dinosaur but rather, with this pictured below.

The impact tremor: Jurassic Park‘s iconic method to inform the audience that shit was about to go down. This occurs multiple times in the film, directly before the T-Rex’s first two appearances.

“Anybody hear that? It’s a, um… It’s an impact tremor, that’s what it is… I’m fairly alarmed here.”

Point is, director Steven Spielberg and scriptwriters Michael Crichton and David Koepp created the Tyrannosaurus to be a creature of dread. For the first half of the movie, the T-Rex is not the surprise scare, it is the creature whose coming is foretold – and there’s nothing the hapless visitors of Jurassic Park can do to stop it. The focus on the impact tremor builds the atmosphere of the scene, allowing the audience to feel the fear and enjoy a full wealth of goosebumps before the animal appears. This effect greatly enhances the first two scenes. Now here’s this:

I could watch this ending all day and never get tired of it.

This ending sequence might be my favorite of any movie… but it doesn’t make any sense. As before stated, by both the film and myself, the T-Rex is a creature with presence. The audience knows where it is throughout the film as evidenced by either the iconic roar or the (even more iconic) impact tremors. Yet in this sequence the T-Rex ninjas (yes ninja is now a verb) its way inside a building without anyone, human or raptor, being aware of its presence. Does it make sense: no. Does it detract from my enjoyment of the film: nope. I’ll get back to why that matters at the end. For now, let’s keep the list going with our next item of stupidity:

Of all the failures of common sense in Jurassic Park, I think this one may grind on me the most. Here’s the skinny: the T-Rex knocks the car (with Tim inside) into a tree. Dr. Grant, being the protagonist he is, goes up into the tree to rescue Tim. This he does but not without moving the steering wheel, thus making it so the car is no longer stable. The two must then climb down the tree with the car in hot pursuit. This creates an action sequence with two characters outrunning the destruction in a race for their very lives.

The problem: there is more than one way down a tree, especially a tree as big as the one in the movie. Why, why on God’s good Earth, would anyone choose the path directly below the car? Especially since they didn’t start out there! Dr. Grant pulls Tim out of the side of the car, that puts them beside it. Meaning Dr. Grant took himself and a child into the direct path of a falling vehicle (too many days digging up dinosaurs in the hot sun I guess).

Look at all the branches you're NOT using. — Look at all the branches you’re NOT using.

Obviously this was, again, the movie sacrificing sense for a cool action sequence. Maybe the reason it effects me more is because I don’t think this sequence is nearly as cool as the finale. For one: no dinosaurs. Two: the car falls in a completely unnatural way, which is yet another suspension of disbelief that Jurassic Park is asking me to make. So two lapses in logic for one dinosaur-free action sequence. Again I’m going to get back to why this doesn’t ruin or even really detract from the movie. Moving on.

Let’s skip ahead in the film to near the end. The “UNIX system” scene (anyone who knows computers has another reason to groan here). Lex is trying to lock the doors while a raptor is trying to force its way into the room. Dr. Grant and Dr. Sattler are trying to hold the door closed. In the meantime Dr. Sattler is also trying to reach the gun, that Dr. Grant dropped, with her foot but in her words: “I can’t get it unless I move!” So they’re in a pickle. If only there was one other person in the room, someone who is literally doing nothing with himself in a time of crisis. Wait… what’s Tim doing?

That’s right, Tim just stands there. This irks me too. It means that, during filming of this sequence, Steven Spielberg had to instruct Joseph Mazzello (actor who plays Tim) to stand there and look like that. How did Spielberg not realize the problem? He probably did; again it is done to enhance the tension of the scene. The problem is that all tension vanishes when you realize that, yeah Tim is a dumb-ass. Also there are a lot of big windows into that room that the raptor could jump through…

Okay, so I’ve had my fun poking holes in Jurassic Park. There’s more I could do but I think you get the point: it’s not a perfect film. I can’t stress enough how well the movie holds up though. All of these problems detracted nothing from my enjoyment. Yet Jurassic Park has two sequels and… they’re not so well remembered. For all intents and purposes, The Lost World: Jurassic Park (actual full title) and Jurassic Park III are just like the first. They’re all three stupid and contain plot holes. So why is one good and the others not?

I think the answer is not found in the script, or the scene construction (although there may be a bit in the latter) but in the players. Jurassic Park has a phenomenal cast that is just insanely fun to watch. Who can’t get behind Sam Neill as Dr. Grant (the man is like Indiana Jones with dinosaurs). Jeff Goldblum owes the entirety of his fame to his quirky portrayal of Ian Malcolm (Independence Day also deserves some credit). Laura Dern, Joseph Mazzello and Ariana Richards provide Jurassic Park‘s emotional core while actors Martin Ferroro and Wayne Knight give us characters we love to see get eaten. Add Samuel L. Jackson (no further explanation needed) doing his trademark performance and Richard Attenborough selling the film’s majestic wonder and there is a combination that can’t be beat. The sequels just don’t have that same killer chemistry.

This is what is needed for Jurassic Park IV (yes it is happening). Recreate that same wonder and fun that existed in the first film. Dinosaurs are awesome even when they’re not chasing or eating people. And it’s great to see a cast that look like they’re having fun rather than simply doing their jobs. I hope director Colin Trevorrow is up to the challenge of Jurassic Park IV. Seeing the original in theaters again made me wish for more Jurassic Park, with all the fun and stupidity included.

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

Also Bob Peck as Robert Muldoon. Never have I seen a man be so serious while looking so ridiculous. Just... his shorts, they deserve their own film. — Also Bob Peck as Robert Muldoon. Never have I seen a man be so serious while looking so ridiculous. Just… his shorts, they deserve their own film.

In Defense of Russell Crowe's Javert

Posted on April 22, 2013 by Colin McMahon

Just going to give a head’s up that this article will be a very complete character examination of this man below (this includes full plot breakdown and ending spoilers):

Oh my god, we’re talking about Russell Crowe. More specifically I’m going to defend his performance of Javert in the recent musical hit, Les Misérables. Many people saw this and many people liked it. The film was nominated for eight Oscars; winning three of them (Anne Hathaway’s well-deserved win as Best Supporting Actress among them). So in short, Les Misérables was a critical success. There was only one performance that a lot of people took issue with. Yeah – our boy, Russell. Many critics found Crowe’s singing to be… less than stellar. Well, when The Onion devotes a video to you, less than stellar may not be adequately summing it up: http://www.theonion.com/video/russell-crowe-praised-for-stunning-portrayal-of-ma,30839/. Youtube even had Hitler weigh in on Russell Crowe, both as an actor and as a singer (warning, Hitler uses naughty German language): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xt-m9dT_jwc.

Okay maybe that last video was overkill but point is: people, in large part, hated Russell Crowe in Les Misérables. He was labeled as the one awful performance amidst a sea of gems (Hathaway, Jackman, etc.). Now I have no comment on Russell Crowe as a human being (never met the guy) but I feel like he has been treated too harshly in regards to Les Misérables. Crowe’s performance in the film isn’t only one of the strongest, it would probably rank as author Victor Hugo’s personal favorite as I believe it is the truest performance to the character that has been portrayed thus far.

And that's the way they all became the Javert Bunch! — And that’s the way they all became the Javert Bunch!

Before I get into Javert, a quick summary of the Les Misérables plot for those who may be unfamiliar: Wolverine steals a loaf of bread and Gladiator sends him to prison. After prison Wolverine goes on the run and adopts Catwoman’s daughter from Borat and Bellatrix Lestrange. Gladiator continues to pursue Wolverine but everyone runs into a 99% rally and a lot of people are killed. It may be comical but it is strangely accurate. Anyway, couldn’t resist having this in here. Back to Crowe’s Javert.

As said in the above poster, he is the law. That’s putting it pretty simply. In describing the character, many people have labeled Javert as a legalist. I’m going to use Wikipedia’s current definition of legalism, as I feel it is very adequate: “usually pejorative term referring to an over-emphasis on discipline of conduct, or legal ideas, usually implying an allegation of misguided rigour, pride, superficiality, the neglect of mercy, and ignorance of the grace of God or emphasizing the letter of law over the spirit. Legalism is alleged against any view that obedience to law, not faith in God’s grace, is the pre-eminent principle of redemption.” Woah, that does sum up Javert pretty well.

One of the few times in the film that Javert shows life is in his pursuit of the law.

Okay so that’s great about Javert but people had problems with Crowe’s performance. In particular he was called wooden and his singing style was described as awkward and not as emotionally free as the other characters. I would agree with the latter part of this criticism but I would not agree that it is criticism. Another way to put that: I believe that Russell Crowe’s singing style is completely intentional (just not comically bad as The Onion suggests).

It all starts if you accept Javert as a strict legalist, which I do as it makes full sense with his character. Now while Javert may be strict in his philosophical beliefs (as he is with everything else) there becomes present a very clear and dividing doubt within the character. Javert sees the world’s morality in terms of black and white: Jean Valjean stole so he is a bad man, the revolutionaries are rebelling against order so they must be bad people – that sort of thing. Problem for him is that Les Misérables is full of gray area. Yes, Valjean stole but he is also a noble man. Yes the revolutionaries resist the law but theirs is a noble cause. Javert is not stupid, he sees all this an it baffles him. Essentially Les Misérables can be watched as the slow breaking of Javert’s mind.

Javert is comfortable when secluded with the law. In his palace of police, there is no outside world presence.

You see this in Crowe’s performance. People have described it as a detractor. The fact that Crowe’s Javert has an almost constant expression on his face (the one pictured in the poster). He never looks certain as many people feel that Javert should. This is true, he does not look certain. He appears in conflict. While Javert is the face of the law, sworn to uphold it – Crowe’s Javert very clearly does not agree with the word of the law, despite his insistence otherwise. It is a psychological condition of denial that gives the otherwise villainous character of Javert a real human depth.

The only time Javert expresses happiness in the film is in the subversion of the law.

There is a sadness that Crowe imbues the character with that makes the audience feels for him. Look at that picture above. I’m not lying, that’s the only time in a nearly three hour film that Javert cracks a smile. In everything else: grim uncertainty. Yet if the fact that Javert is not happy in his work does not do enough to instill a sense of sympathy. I invite a contrast, look at how comfortable he looks above. Okay, now look below:

One of the most powerful character moments for Javert: among the dead revolutionaries.

Russell Crowe portrays Javert as more than out-of-place in this scene. There is genuine horror and dawning realization upon his features. It is only at this point in the film that Javert’s last illusions of black and white crumble away. That medal, which has been displayed so proudly on his chest in previous scenes, guess what is the first thing Javert does with that medal afterward:

Javert pins his medal on the dead body of the boy who identified him as a police inspector. For that crime, Javert was supposed to hang. The only reason he did not was through the actions of Jean Valjean.

Okay, you’re saying, right now I’m saying there’s a lot of strength in the character of Javert but I’m not doing much to showcase the strength of Russell Crowe’s performance. Audiences are fine with Javert, it’s Crowe that they have the problem with. True enough but while I have been focusing on Javert’s character, I have been doing that to highlight the pains and constraints by which he is acted. Javert is not a character who will give a tearful rendition of his thoughts and emotions. Well, he does do that once – right before he kills himself. Yeah, there is emotional repression. You know how that looks? Watch the subtleties of Crowe’s acting. Heck, just look at the way he carries himself on the pivotal balcony scenes:

Like a hanged man dangling without the rope.

Les Misérables is not a subtle movie. Really Javert is the only character in it who is not comfortable in self-expression. When you consider that, his character must then have a completely unique style of portrayal. Yes his performance should stand out, but it is not wooden. The Onion was right. Russel Crowe should be commended on his performance. It is the perfect portrayal of a man who walks the line between law and chaos, right and wrong, and what happens when he finally stumbles and falls.

Russell Crowe’s own defense of his performance: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vnAhVVPUdGU

Walking the line. One side is visually simple while the other is complex. A whole character reflected in a sequence.

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