I argue that the NBA has the worst officiating of any professional sport, especially in North America. When it added a third on-court official, the refereeing actually got worse. How about, instead of fining players and coaches for pointing out what every fan knows to be true (i.e., that the NBA officiating is so horrible), the NBA simplifies its rules and cleans up the officiating? I know, I know, what a novel concept.
Here are some suggestions:
Right now, on approximately 8 out of 10 plays, the official who is completely blocked off from actually seeing whether a foul was committed is usually the one that blows the whistle. He assumes a foul must have been committed because he heard a sound or saw some movement by the shooter that suggested a foul. New rule: if you don't actually see an actual foul, you don't call it.
Also, frankly, the rules have gone too far toward allowing "act of shooting" calls to grant the person with the ball a foul shot. Let's make it so that if you aren't actively/currently in the act of shooting (i.e., the ball is in your hands and they are actively moving forward in a shooting action), then it is not an act of shooting foul. No more "two steps without dribbling," no more throwing your arms wildly forward after you hear the whistle and faking the ref into giving you a foul shot. Getting to the free throw line should be a rare and special occurrence, not a contest between the superstars to see who can get there the most in a game.
Oh, and let's actually use a rule that is on the books and make it more prevalent and important: the person who initiates the contact is the one on whom the foul is called. I hate watching a basketball game and Hubie Brown, Marv Albert, Mike Breen, or another announcer talks about the shooter "leaning into" the defender or trying to "draw contact" and getting a whistle. The rules state that the person who initiates the contact is the one who committed the foul. No more charging straight ahead, leaping into the air and into a defender, and it is the defender's fault for being in the way. If this rule was used and applied properly, more charges would get called and NBA players wouldn't feel the need to "flop" in order to get a call in their favor.
Also, let's expand the existing "hand is part of the ball" rule to say "the hand and forearm, up to but not including the elbow" is part of the ball and any incidental contact is considered part of the ball. Also, "the feet and lower legs, up to but not including the knees" is considered neutral territory, like the court, and incidental contact does not constitute a penalty. No more having two players running down the court and their feet get tangled and it is a foul on someone. I think most refs can determine if a player is kicking at another with intent as opposed to just stepping on a foot and taking a tumble.
If two people are on the ground wrestling over the ball, or someone is trapped on the sideline, they cannot call a timeout. If you are wrestling for the ball, there is always some, even minor, doubt as to who has possession of it, so no time out can be called. If you are trapped on the sideline by a defender, possession of the ball is starting to be in doubt (as you may not be able to escape, thus giving the ball to the other team either via the shot clock or by stepping out of bounds) and you should not be allowed to call timeout. Timeouts should only be called when possession is without doubt and only by the team with the ball (TV and referee timeouts are the only exceptions to this).
The NBA wants exciting games to draw the fans in. They want to make money. During the season, the refs call the game one way which allows for a lot of offense and higher scores. But when the game gets to the playoffs, they call it differently and much more defense is played. Yet more people watch the playoffs than watch individual games during the season. This is partly because there are so many games (82 during a regular season) that each individual game means very little but mostly because individual game in the playoffs have so much more meaning and value. It also shows that fans don't mind watching exciting, defensive games. So, let's bring the defense back into the league and allow the contests to be decided on the court, not by arbitrary calls by an official.
These are my suggestions. How would you fix the officiating in the NBA?
Copyright
Saturday, May 26, 2012
Thursday, May 24, 2012
Rift
I fairly recently became aware of a new MMORPG called Rift. It generally uses the tropes and conventions of other online games of the fantasy genre, but it does something that few of the others do: it learns from the mistakes of past games and has put in place new ways of doing things.
Rift provides you with a lot of storage space, than can be expanded by larger sized backpacks. Many games make storage an issue so that you cannot carry around what you want to and have to make decisions (or as a time sink so that you have to constantly return to locations where you can sell items).
The game provides a button at each vendor to sell all "gray" or low-level, trash items that you pick up during your forays into the wilderness. This saves a lot of time at the vendors, and means you can more quickly get to reviewing and selecting which of the new, high-level items you wish to keep and use, and which you want to sell (or if you have stuff that is craft fodder and want to convert it).
While Rift has a craft system that is very robust, you do not need to waste backpack space with the craft tools. In LOTRO, for example, I have some Explorers. Each one has to waste up to three slots just to carry the sewing kit, pickaxe, and hammer needed for the crafts involved. In Rift, you simply take the crafting skill and the game provides you with the appropriate tools when you need to use it-- you do not waste any valuable slots on the tool. Backpack space is still needed for the materials you receive via crafting. In general, you can select up to three crafts that all work together so you are pretty much not reliant on other people for materials.
Each class has special abilities or powers they can use when a power bar level is achieved. For example, some of the Fighter classes build up "Attack Points," with a total of three available, while a Thief can build up their similar power bar up to eight. Each is built up using "Builder" powers and used with "Finishers." This is similar to many classes in other MMORPGs. In this game, however, once built up, those power bar are not lost until YOU use them. In most games (all that I have played, until Rift), whatever you build up slowly ebbs as you play or if you don't use it. In Rift, once you build up your bar, it remains on your character until you select a Finisher that uses some or all of it. In addition, all of your starting abilities/powers build up those bars. The use to build-up ratio may not be 1:1, but your starting powers all have at least a chance to give you one or more of those power build-up/energy/bonuses. (In most cases, it is very nearly 1:1. However, the fighter has to actually hit with its builders, so a strongly defensive or dodging opponent can make it harder for a fighter class to build up his Attack Points.)
One of the important changes in Rift over most of the MMORPGs I have played is that in Rift you select your main archetype from the four classics (Fighter, Thief, Cleric, Mage). But, within that selection, you have up to three "souls," or subclasses, that you can mix and match to tailor a character to your exact play-style and desires. For example, there are 8 subclasses of Fighter you can opt for, mixing and matching up to three of them together for various abilities. The subclasses are labeled as Offensive, Defensive, or Support. So, for example, I initially went with one of the default setups with my Fighter, which happened to have three Offensive subclasses selected. However, with my play-style of "slow and steady wins the race," I was finding I was dying a lot. I investigated the subclasses a bit more, and determined that by mixing in the right Defensive subclass, I was able to vastly increase my survivability with my play-style.
Another change to how Rift works as compared to many MMORPGs is that it uses fewer clickable powers (even though you have, in essence, three "classes" worth of abilities from your subclasses). Instead, each time you level, rather than always getting a new clickable power, you get abilities that modify your existing skills and abilities. On level up, you might select to increase your defenses, or ability to dodge, or the number of opponents the existing abilities attack, or add a new energy type to what your powers can do -- there are many choices, only some of which provide you with new clickable powers. In addition, many of the subclasses have synergies between powers and abilities that allow you to build up very potent offensive, defensive, and support abilities by mixing and matching what each subclasses does. For example, I stumbled on a combo of three subclasses on a mage character that each have powers that apply Damage Over Time (DOT) effects or that have abilities that enhance and improve DOTs. By mixing and matching, I have a mage that can case a few spells on the opponent and then move on to the next opponent, knowing that the DOT effects will take the first one out in no time.
One other aspect of Rift I really like is that there are a lot of aura and self-buffs that you can click and forget or buff for up to an hour on your character. Some of these are group buffs (or can become group buffs) and many are self-only buffs. You can, in general, have all of the buffs from any of your three subclasses working at once; which means if you select your subclasses carefully, you can create a character with many buffs going on and providing synergies at one time.
As a sidebar to the way the classes and souls are set up in Rift, they have made "respeccing" relatively easy and painless. In many MMORPGs, you have classes that can do multiple things in a group (for example, DPS and Tanking), but the player usually is specified (speced/specced) for one or the other. It is often expensive, irritating, and sometimes time consuming to respec your character to fit the other abilities when needed. In Rift, your second Spec slot is pretty cheap and each subsequent one is more expensive (you can have up to six Specs for one character!). Secondly, a respecced character in Rift can COMPLETELY respec from scratch for each one of those Specs -- while you have to stay within the main selection you made (Fighter, Mage, Cleric, Thief), the three souls/subclasses you use for each spec can be completely different. For example, my Cleric has a "Tank" build, that has two Defensive and one Offensive soul, a "Battle Tank" build that has two Offensive and one Defensive soul. This allows me to be do more damage while playing on my own, and to be more of a tank/healer when I am grouped with people. Switching between them is easy and quick. Also, as long as a subclass/soul is at 0, you can change it to something else. If you have spent points on a subclass, you can still change it by going to a class trainer and paying a relatively nominal fee to start over from scratch, and there is no limit (except for money) on this form of respeccing. All in all, respeccing is VERY easy compared to most MMORPGs.
Most MMORPGs have events or times when grouping is somewhat forced or required. Rift has a rather neat and elegant method for events: If you are in the area when the event is taking place, you can join the public group, continue to participate with others but as an individual, or ignore it completely (although you might get attacked if you get too close). Public groups, if enough people are around, can also merge into a super group containing multiple groups. If you decide to join one of the public groups that spontaneously forms when these events occur, your buffs and group abilities immediately populate to your new teammates (and theirs to you). It is quick, painless, and you don't have to spend minutes to hours in a group channel or chat posting "Looking for Team for X" -- you just go where the action is and group up as it happens. You can choose to stay together or go your separate ways afterward.
Another small, but very nice, change that Rift made as compares with most MMORPGs is that you can mail up to six items to other characters, in addition to money and text. Most games I've played either don't allow mailing items or reluctantly allow you to mail one item at a time to a character. Rift designers have realized that this is a needless restricting to paying customers and let you send six things at once. It makes rekitting a new character with your higher level so much faster and easier-- you can get right to the adventuring!
Rift provides you with a lot of storage space, than can be expanded by larger sized backpacks. Many games make storage an issue so that you cannot carry around what you want to and have to make decisions (or as a time sink so that you have to constantly return to locations where you can sell items).
The game provides a button at each vendor to sell all "gray" or low-level, trash items that you pick up during your forays into the wilderness. This saves a lot of time at the vendors, and means you can more quickly get to reviewing and selecting which of the new, high-level items you wish to keep and use, and which you want to sell (or if you have stuff that is craft fodder and want to convert it).
While Rift has a craft system that is very robust, you do not need to waste backpack space with the craft tools. In LOTRO, for example, I have some Explorers. Each one has to waste up to three slots just to carry the sewing kit, pickaxe, and hammer needed for the crafts involved. In Rift, you simply take the crafting skill and the game provides you with the appropriate tools when you need to use it-- you do not waste any valuable slots on the tool. Backpack space is still needed for the materials you receive via crafting. In general, you can select up to three crafts that all work together so you are pretty much not reliant on other people for materials.
Each class has special abilities or powers they can use when a power bar level is achieved. For example, some of the Fighter classes build up "Attack Points," with a total of three available, while a Thief can build up their similar power bar up to eight. Each is built up using "Builder" powers and used with "Finishers." This is similar to many classes in other MMORPGs. In this game, however, once built up, those power bar are not lost until YOU use them. In most games (all that I have played, until Rift), whatever you build up slowly ebbs as you play or if you don't use it. In Rift, once you build up your bar, it remains on your character until you select a Finisher that uses some or all of it. In addition, all of your starting abilities/powers build up those bars. The use to build-up ratio may not be 1:1, but your starting powers all have at least a chance to give you one or more of those power build-up/energy/bonuses. (In most cases, it is very nearly 1:1. However, the fighter has to actually hit with its builders, so a strongly defensive or dodging opponent can make it harder for a fighter class to build up his Attack Points.)
One of the important changes in Rift over most of the MMORPGs I have played is that in Rift you select your main archetype from the four classics (Fighter, Thief, Cleric, Mage). But, within that selection, you have up to three "souls," or subclasses, that you can mix and match to tailor a character to your exact play-style and desires. For example, there are 8 subclasses of Fighter you can opt for, mixing and matching up to three of them together for various abilities. The subclasses are labeled as Offensive, Defensive, or Support. So, for example, I initially went with one of the default setups with my Fighter, which happened to have three Offensive subclasses selected. However, with my play-style of "slow and steady wins the race," I was finding I was dying a lot. I investigated the subclasses a bit more, and determined that by mixing in the right Defensive subclass, I was able to vastly increase my survivability with my play-style.
Another change to how Rift works as compared to many MMORPGs is that it uses fewer clickable powers (even though you have, in essence, three "classes" worth of abilities from your subclasses). Instead, each time you level, rather than always getting a new clickable power, you get abilities that modify your existing skills and abilities. On level up, you might select to increase your defenses, or ability to dodge, or the number of opponents the existing abilities attack, or add a new energy type to what your powers can do -- there are many choices, only some of which provide you with new clickable powers. In addition, many of the subclasses have synergies between powers and abilities that allow you to build up very potent offensive, defensive, and support abilities by mixing and matching what each subclasses does. For example, I stumbled on a combo of three subclasses on a mage character that each have powers that apply Damage Over Time (DOT) effects or that have abilities that enhance and improve DOTs. By mixing and matching, I have a mage that can case a few spells on the opponent and then move on to the next opponent, knowing that the DOT effects will take the first one out in no time.
One other aspect of Rift I really like is that there are a lot of aura and self-buffs that you can click and forget or buff for up to an hour on your character. Some of these are group buffs (or can become group buffs) and many are self-only buffs. You can, in general, have all of the buffs from any of your three subclasses working at once; which means if you select your subclasses carefully, you can create a character with many buffs going on and providing synergies at one time.
As a sidebar to the way the classes and souls are set up in Rift, they have made "respeccing" relatively easy and painless. In many MMORPGs, you have classes that can do multiple things in a group (for example, DPS and Tanking), but the player usually is specified (speced/specced) for one or the other. It is often expensive, irritating, and sometimes time consuming to respec your character to fit the other abilities when needed. In Rift, your second Spec slot is pretty cheap and each subsequent one is more expensive (you can have up to six Specs for one character!). Secondly, a respecced character in Rift can COMPLETELY respec from scratch for each one of those Specs -- while you have to stay within the main selection you made (Fighter, Mage, Cleric, Thief), the three souls/subclasses you use for each spec can be completely different. For example, my Cleric has a "Tank" build, that has two Defensive and one Offensive soul, a "Battle Tank" build that has two Offensive and one Defensive soul. This allows me to be do more damage while playing on my own, and to be more of a tank/healer when I am grouped with people. Switching between them is easy and quick. Also, as long as a subclass/soul is at 0, you can change it to something else. If you have spent points on a subclass, you can still change it by going to a class trainer and paying a relatively nominal fee to start over from scratch, and there is no limit (except for money) on this form of respeccing. All in all, respeccing is VERY easy compared to most MMORPGs.
Most MMORPGs have events or times when grouping is somewhat forced or required. Rift has a rather neat and elegant method for events: If you are in the area when the event is taking place, you can join the public group, continue to participate with others but as an individual, or ignore it completely (although you might get attacked if you get too close). Public groups, if enough people are around, can also merge into a super group containing multiple groups. If you decide to join one of the public groups that spontaneously forms when these events occur, your buffs and group abilities immediately populate to your new teammates (and theirs to you). It is quick, painless, and you don't have to spend minutes to hours in a group channel or chat posting "Looking for Team for X" -- you just go where the action is and group up as it happens. You can choose to stay together or go your separate ways afterward.
Another small, but very nice, change that Rift made as compares with most MMORPGs is that you can mail up to six items to other characters, in addition to money and text. Most games I've played either don't allow mailing items or reluctantly allow you to mail one item at a time to a character. Rift designers have realized that this is a needless restricting to paying customers and let you send six things at once. It makes rekitting a new character with your higher level so much faster and easier-- you can get right to the adventuring!
Monday, April 30, 2012
Picking You
My wife saw a picture of a cat that needs adoption and something sparked in her. On Sunday we went to visit the cat at its foster home. While the cat is loving and affectionate, we just did not feel that spark from the cat that indicated to us it was choosing us as its owners. A tad ironically, one of the foster owner's own cats seemed to spark and want to bond with us both and we sparked to immediately. But that pet is not up for adoption. For now, we'll continue being happy with our single pet.
What I have found over decades of pet ownership is that any time you force a selection on an animal, the relationship isn't as strong and the bond as pure as when you let the right animal choose you. Before getting our current cat, we visited a number of animals. Many were affectionate toward one or both of us, but generically so (similar to Sunday's cat). However, when we met and interacted with our cat, it was obvious he wanted to be with us. It was in the way he looked at us, the way he did not want us to leave, the way he puddled into our arms and seemed like he was at home and at peace.
Our cat has taken to our home easily, been easy to retrain from its previous owners, and easily fits into our lifestyle and ways of interacting with him. He makes just as much of an effort toward us as we make toward him. I am firmly convinced this is because he chose us.
Too often I see adults letting little children pick a pet based on color or activity level rather than on which pet takes an active interest in that family/person. Just as often, I then hear about them having problems training the pet, interacting with it, or that its personality just "changed" when they got it home and introduced it to its new environment. Whereas, when they were at the shelter or home and were interacting with the animals, there was likely one that came right up to the person and did its best to announce "Here I am, pick me!"
Awhile back, I had a cat die from liver disease. After a few months, I decide to replace the cat. When I went to visit a litter of kittens, there were a couple of kittens that immediately came over to investigate me. Two were orange, a male and a female. The male spent some time sniffing and playing with my shoelaces, but then got distracted by the other kittens playing and joined them, went and ate a little something, wandered back to me, and then went off to play with an old sock. The female cat, however, came over, stayed near me, and tried to climb my leg and get into my lap. She was totally focused on me the entire time and wanted to bond with me. She was picking me as the important thing and the thing to pay attention to and interact with. When I picked her up, she just melted into my arms and did not want to leave them. She purred and promptly fell asleep. It was obvious she and I had bonded, so she was my selection. And we had 10 great years together where she learned my routines, liked to be in my lap if I was reading or watching TV, and always waited for me watching the door when I came home from work. Had I insisted on the male orange tabby, I'm sure the relationship would have been very different and I might have even had trouble "taming" him. Instead, I went for the cat that chose me.
Pets are living beings with minds of their own. They need to pick their owners as much as their owners pick them. While you can take in an animal that does not chose you, the relationship simply will not be the same as when the selection, and the bonding, is mutual.
What I have found over decades of pet ownership is that any time you force a selection on an animal, the relationship isn't as strong and the bond as pure as when you let the right animal choose you. Before getting our current cat, we visited a number of animals. Many were affectionate toward one or both of us, but generically so (similar to Sunday's cat). However, when we met and interacted with our cat, it was obvious he wanted to be with us. It was in the way he looked at us, the way he did not want us to leave, the way he puddled into our arms and seemed like he was at home and at peace.
Our cat has taken to our home easily, been easy to retrain from its previous owners, and easily fits into our lifestyle and ways of interacting with him. He makes just as much of an effort toward us as we make toward him. I am firmly convinced this is because he chose us.
Too often I see adults letting little children pick a pet based on color or activity level rather than on which pet takes an active interest in that family/person. Just as often, I then hear about them having problems training the pet, interacting with it, or that its personality just "changed" when they got it home and introduced it to its new environment. Whereas, when they were at the shelter or home and were interacting with the animals, there was likely one that came right up to the person and did its best to announce "Here I am, pick me!"
Awhile back, I had a cat die from liver disease. After a few months, I decide to replace the cat. When I went to visit a litter of kittens, there were a couple of kittens that immediately came over to investigate me. Two were orange, a male and a female. The male spent some time sniffing and playing with my shoelaces, but then got distracted by the other kittens playing and joined them, went and ate a little something, wandered back to me, and then went off to play with an old sock. The female cat, however, came over, stayed near me, and tried to climb my leg and get into my lap. She was totally focused on me the entire time and wanted to bond with me. She was picking me as the important thing and the thing to pay attention to and interact with. When I picked her up, she just melted into my arms and did not want to leave them. She purred and promptly fell asleep. It was obvious she and I had bonded, so she was my selection. And we had 10 great years together where she learned my routines, liked to be in my lap if I was reading or watching TV, and always waited for me watching the door when I came home from work. Had I insisted on the male orange tabby, I'm sure the relationship would have been very different and I might have even had trouble "taming" him. Instead, I went for the cat that chose me.
Pets are living beings with minds of their own. They need to pick their owners as much as their owners pick them. While you can take in an animal that does not chose you, the relationship simply will not be the same as when the selection, and the bonding, is mutual.
Monday, April 23, 2012
Genies and Bottles
Like it or not, the digital age is here to stay. We have smart phones (but dumb users), Facebook, Twitter, and the 24/7 news/opinion cycle. The moment one person hears something, it is out there for everyone to see, hear, read, and react to and cannot be taken back. You cannot delete something from the Internet, you can only remove the copy of something you posted at that time; all the other copies, reposts, reTweets, and spider-bots that look for and save copies of web pages will have their copies in perpetuity.
It astounds me that sports figures, celebu-tards, and politicians continue to try to use the "they hacked my account" excuse. That's so 2005. Haven't you learned yet that if you just apologize for the stupid, insensitive comment right away, the public is much more likely to believe you and move on to the next scandal? If you deny it, you just add wood to the fire.
One of my wife's family members died on Sunday, but the family waited until Monday to ask people not to post anything online about it. Too late. That should have been explicitly and clearly stated when they were making the phone calls announcing the death, otherwise it has become de rigueur to post whatever thoughts a person has immediately onto a Twitter, Facebook/Plus feed, or blog. In this case, a couple of family members were not told immediately, posted something, and the cat was out of the bag before the family could notify the rest of those they wished to call.
People need to remember:
It astounds me that sports figures, celebu-tards, and politicians continue to try to use the "they hacked my account" excuse. That's so 2005. Haven't you learned yet that if you just apologize for the stupid, insensitive comment right away, the public is much more likely to believe you and move on to the next scandal? If you deny it, you just add wood to the fire.
One of my wife's family members died on Sunday, but the family waited until Monday to ask people not to post anything online about it. Too late. That should have been explicitly and clearly stated when they were making the phone calls announcing the death, otherwise it has become de rigueur to post whatever thoughts a person has immediately onto a Twitter, Facebook/Plus feed, or blog. In this case, a couple of family members were not told immediately, posted something, and the cat was out of the bag before the family could notify the rest of those they wished to call.
People need to remember:
- Every single thing you post to the World Wide Web is permanent. You can never delete it or get every single copy removed. So think a second (and a third time) before posting it. Does not matter if it is a text message, email, blog, video, picture or other communication -- if it is posted to the Internet, it will always be on the Internet.
- Assume that everything you post to the World Wide Web is public. A personal email may be accidentally (or intentionally) forwarded to the wrong party or someone may CC/BCC someone you do not want to read it. Something you post to your Twitter or Facebook may be listed as "private" but can easily and quickly become public when the person you posted it to responds. And, once it is posted or sent, refer to rule 1.
- There is no such thing as "anonymous" on the World Wide Web. You may think what you are posting is done anonymously, but the government can requisition your information from the ISP, the content provider, or the social media site and quickly discover who you are. There are groups of "hackers" and never-do-wells who delight in breaking into accounts and posting your private information so that you can be publicly accosted (see the 4chan versus the little girl incident, for example). The best you can hope for is plausible deniability. Once it is is posted or sent, refer to rules 1 and 2.
- Be respectful of others. This is the one most lacking in today's online communities. But if you consider rules 1-3, this one becomes a no-brainer. If you thought you could call someone names and bully them, just remember what happened to the little girl and her family when 4chan decided to make them a project. No one is truly anonymous, everything can be made very public, and all of it will be permanent, so be nice. If you disagree, do it respectfully.
Remembering and assuming these rules can keep you safe(r) in the digital age. It makes you think twice before posting that picture or video. It helps you not send that inflammatory email to your boss, coworker, client, subordinate that can get you fired. It makes you think again before posting that blog containing derogatory comments.
I only post a blog entry every week or two. But I write many more blog entries. It is just that I write them, let them sit in my Draft folder for a while, and then delete them when I realize I was out of bounds, did not want whatever it was about to be public, or was not being respectful. And I realize my anonymity to the general public is easily compromised both by those few who know who I am and by those who wish to make an effort to find out. It just is not worth it to me.
Actually, in reviewing the four rules I typed above, I think they are salient points for everyone's daily lives, regardless of Internet use. If we would all assume that everything we say and do is permanent, that everything we do or say can become public, that we cannot maintain our anonymity, and if we are respectful to others in all aspects of our lives, the majority of the scandals, situations, and issues we see reported in the news today would not happen.
It would be one small step toward putting the Genie back into its bottle.
Monday, April 16, 2012
The Woman in Black
Special Note:
I did not read the story this film is based on prior to seeing the movie. My wife did. She shook her head throughout, as it seemed most of the movie was only loosely based on the story from which it comes. I'd recommend not reading the story before watching the movie, as I was much more entertained by it, because I had nothing to compare it to, than my wife was.
----
I like a good horror story. Classic ghost stories can be some of the most effective to put on screen, because the forced perspective of a film allows the director and writer to really play up the tunnel-vision we get while watching a movie and startle you.
The Woman in Black, a Hammer Films production released earlier this year and starring Daniel Radcliffe is a decent horror/ghost story. It has the right use of mood, music, lighting, and startle moments to be quite effective as a ghost story. The acting is good enough that it pushes the story along, and the cinematography and effects are quite good.
However, it is how they tell the tale, and especially the ending, that lets the movie down.
*START SPOILERS*
The problem comes in that I was left wondering, well after the movie, why the rules failed and why the Woman is still haunting the village. Why didn't the discovery of her son work? Why didn't she find peace, being reunited with him? Why did she seek vengeance on Kipps for trying to help her? With no explanation, not even a hint, as to why this action failed, you are left feeling like most of what you just watched was superfluous and with meaning. Why did they provide you with all of that information about the ghost if none of it was accurate? If all of it was inaccurate, why in the world would anyone continue to live in the village?
I have a feeling that this movie had a very different ending until they test-screened it and found that they likely had a modest hit on their hands. Once that happened, my guess is that they tacked on that ending to show the Woman is still around so they could make a sequel (which, by the way, is being written and produced right now).
*END SPOILERS*
All in all, The Woman in Black is a good horror/ghost story, mostly effective in all the right ways. However, the very ending scene leaves a bad taste in your mouth and, story-wise, invalidates everything you've just watched. The 90 minute running time is just about right, there is a quality cast doing a good job, and the effects, cinematography, and music are all effective and done well.
I did not read the story this film is based on prior to seeing the movie. My wife did. She shook her head throughout, as it seemed most of the movie was only loosely based on the story from which it comes. I'd recommend not reading the story before watching the movie, as I was much more entertained by it, because I had nothing to compare it to, than my wife was.
----
I like a good horror story. Classic ghost stories can be some of the most effective to put on screen, because the forced perspective of a film allows the director and writer to really play up the tunnel-vision we get while watching a movie and startle you.
The Woman in Black, a Hammer Films production released earlier this year and starring Daniel Radcliffe is a decent horror/ghost story. It has the right use of mood, music, lighting, and startle moments to be quite effective as a ghost story. The acting is good enough that it pushes the story along, and the cinematography and effects are quite good.
However, it is how they tell the tale, and especially the ending, that lets the movie down.
*START SPOILERS*
Radcliffe is a solicitor named Kipps sent to a creepy mansion in the boondocks to go through a dead woman's papers and make sure everything is ready so that his office can sell the house and property. When he arrives in the small town close to the house, he is treated poorly; everyone in the town wants him to go back to London, but no one explains why. It becomes a little absurd how they so blatantly try to push him out of town -- I think anyone coming into that situation would become a bit belligerent and stay.
After getting a ride out to the house, Kipps starts experiencing all the classic poltergeist signs: he sees shapes and movement, hears noises, and sees things have moved around the house. He also senses some malevolence.
When he returns to the village, the village's children start killing themselves in spectacular ways, usually in front of him.
He goes to dinner at the rich man's house and the man's crazy wife starts to tell him things about the ghost haunting the manor. What she says is important, because she is the classic "seer" of the story -- the person who lays out the ground-rules for the horror story and what needs to happen. After a couple of times talking with her, he realizes that the Woman in Black, as she is known to the villagers, is a woman who lost her child in the marsh, and they never found his body. This drove her to suicide. As a ghost, she now finds the children of the village and lures them to their deaths so that she can be surrounded by children.
This leads Kipps to realize that the ghost needs closure by finding her lost son. He and the rich man take the man's car out to the marsh and Kipps dives for thee wreckage where the boy died. They are successful at finding the boy's body, and Kipps brings it to the house and leads the ghost to it. As soon as she finds the boy, all the supernatural events around the house seem to cease, and he and the rich man break open her tomb and lay the boy's body with his mother, at rest at last.
Or is she?
As Kipps meets his nanny and his son at the train station, the Woman in Black appears, along with most of the dead children, and lead Kipps' son onto the train tracks. Kipps dives after him and they are both killed. However, they meet Kipps dead wife (and his son's mother), who leads them to the afterlife.
Fade to BlackThe problem here is that the movie provides no explanation or reason why the rules of the world, as presented by the villagers and the seer, did not work. If the Woman found her son, which all the letters she wrote and what the dead children, through the seer, indicate needs to happen for the Woman to rest, there should be a happy ending to the story and the Woman in Black should not have killed Kipps and son. But she was not laid to rest by that action, which leaves the audience unsettled in all the wrong ways for a ghost story.
The problem comes in that I was left wondering, well after the movie, why the rules failed and why the Woman is still haunting the village. Why didn't the discovery of her son work? Why didn't she find peace, being reunited with him? Why did she seek vengeance on Kipps for trying to help her? With no explanation, not even a hint, as to why this action failed, you are left feeling like most of what you just watched was superfluous and with meaning. Why did they provide you with all of that information about the ghost if none of it was accurate? If all of it was inaccurate, why in the world would anyone continue to live in the village?
I have a feeling that this movie had a very different ending until they test-screened it and found that they likely had a modest hit on their hands. Once that happened, my guess is that they tacked on that ending to show the Woman is still around so they could make a sequel (which, by the way, is being written and produced right now).
*END SPOILERS*
All in all, The Woman in Black is a good horror/ghost story, mostly effective in all the right ways. However, the very ending scene leaves a bad taste in your mouth and, story-wise, invalidates everything you've just watched. The 90 minute running time is just about right, there is a quality cast doing a good job, and the effects, cinematography, and music are all effective and done well.
Tuesday, April 10, 2012
Shake It, Don't Break It!
Shaky-cam is ruining good films. Take The Hunger Games. A very good adaptation of a popular book that has good stars (Jennifer Lawrence, Liam Hemsworth, Josh Hutcherson, Elizabeth Banks, Woody Harrelson, and Donald Sutherland). The writers did a good job of paring down the book's plot and characters for the movie (although I think they left out some things that may become important in Catching Fire, later). The two things that make this movie annoying as hell to watch are the use of shaky-cam and the quick edits.
I have said it before, shaky-cam is the last bastion of the inept director. If a director feels that he needs to use shaky-cam to "get you into the action" or "make you feel a part of the action" then that director has failed his audience. The large screen in the theater, the acting, the story, and the shared experience is what gets me into the movie, not your ability to shake what has become my entire visual field in the dark environment of the theater. All that does is make me sick to my stomach.
Gary Ross, the director of The Hunger Games, also uses very quick edits and blurring effects in addition to the shaky-cam. The end result becomes action sequences that may be thrilling... but the audience does not know because they cannot focus on anything long enough to see what is going on. The constant shaking of the field of vision makes many nauseated and left unable to watch what is on the screen, for minutes at a time. Last time I check, movie watching was a visual activity. If you stop your audience from seeing and watching, what, then, is the point?
What is more interesting about this movie is that Ross uses a steadicam just as often as he uses shaky-cam. So you have a scene where Katniss is running through the forest using shaky-cam, then fireballs fly at her using steadicam, then more running with shaky-cam. The switches between the two make the shaky-cam work seem even worse because your brain has a moment to stop and process everything and start to relax.
Worse yet, the first 45 minutes or so of the movie have the worst shaky-cam use. Then it calms down for a while and you get more comfortable, and then the action starts up and it is sort of hit or miss whether a scene will use shaky-cam. This inconsistency, as mentioned above, makes the return of shaky-cam more jarring.
Back to the quick edits. I have watched music videos. They use so many quick cuts that you would think that someone with ADD would have trouble paying attention. Yet, in some scenes, The Hunger Games makes these look tame. The edits are so fast, and often involve going from lighter to darker scenes and blur effects, that your eyes cannot adjust to the changes quickly enough to realize what you just saw. In some ways, it almost seems like Ross is going for subliminal action scenes... if he cuts fast enough you get the impression of action without him actually having to film action.
Taken as-is, I would have to give The Hunger Games no more than a B-. I think it has an A cast, a B+ script, an A for music and general effects, an A for costuming, and an A for how closely they kept to the actual plot and story of the source material. But Ross gets a C- for his direction and a D for the poor editing (overall) and jump cutting (specifically during action sequences).
All in all, if you have issues with shaky-cam making you sick, I would wait and watch this on the small screen where, I find, the field of vision is broader and the shaking on the TV screen does not cause as much issue.
Addendum:
Apparently Gary Ross is negotiating a new contract/deal to direct the second installment, Catching Fire, and the production company is hard-balling him. Good! At this point, my hope is that Ross would not be back and they would get someone who is better with action sequences to direct the next movie.
And, in case you are wondering, I have nothing against Gary Ross. He directed Pleasantville, one of my all-time favorites, and Seabiscuit, a pretty good sports story.
Second Addendum:
Gary Ross is out. He couldn't get the money he wanted, but is saying it was the aggressive turnaround time on the production that caused him to walk away. Now they can hopefully hire a director that is more comfortable with action sequences and one who doesn't need to rely on the schlocky shaky-cam.
I have said it before, shaky-cam is the last bastion of the inept director. If a director feels that he needs to use shaky-cam to "get you into the action" or "make you feel a part of the action" then that director has failed his audience. The large screen in the theater, the acting, the story, and the shared experience is what gets me into the movie, not your ability to shake what has become my entire visual field in the dark environment of the theater. All that does is make me sick to my stomach.
Gary Ross, the director of The Hunger Games, also uses very quick edits and blurring effects in addition to the shaky-cam. The end result becomes action sequences that may be thrilling... but the audience does not know because they cannot focus on anything long enough to see what is going on. The constant shaking of the field of vision makes many nauseated and left unable to watch what is on the screen, for minutes at a time. Last time I check, movie watching was a visual activity. If you stop your audience from seeing and watching, what, then, is the point?
What is more interesting about this movie is that Ross uses a steadicam just as often as he uses shaky-cam. So you have a scene where Katniss is running through the forest using shaky-cam, then fireballs fly at her using steadicam, then more running with shaky-cam. The switches between the two make the shaky-cam work seem even worse because your brain has a moment to stop and process everything and start to relax.
Worse yet, the first 45 minutes or so of the movie have the worst shaky-cam use. Then it calms down for a while and you get more comfortable, and then the action starts up and it is sort of hit or miss whether a scene will use shaky-cam. This inconsistency, as mentioned above, makes the return of shaky-cam more jarring.
Back to the quick edits. I have watched music videos. They use so many quick cuts that you would think that someone with ADD would have trouble paying attention. Yet, in some scenes, The Hunger Games makes these look tame. The edits are so fast, and often involve going from lighter to darker scenes and blur effects, that your eyes cannot adjust to the changes quickly enough to realize what you just saw. In some ways, it almost seems like Ross is going for subliminal action scenes... if he cuts fast enough you get the impression of action without him actually having to film action.
Taken as-is, I would have to give The Hunger Games no more than a B-. I think it has an A cast, a B+ script, an A for music and general effects, an A for costuming, and an A for how closely they kept to the actual plot and story of the source material. But Ross gets a C- for his direction and a D for the poor editing (overall) and jump cutting (specifically during action sequences).
All in all, if you have issues with shaky-cam making you sick, I would wait and watch this on the small screen where, I find, the field of vision is broader and the shaking on the TV screen does not cause as much issue.
Addendum:
Apparently Gary Ross is negotiating a new contract/deal to direct the second installment, Catching Fire, and the production company is hard-balling him. Good! At this point, my hope is that Ross would not be back and they would get someone who is better with action sequences to direct the next movie.
And, in case you are wondering, I have nothing against Gary Ross. He directed Pleasantville, one of my all-time favorites, and Seabiscuit, a pretty good sports story.
Second Addendum:
Gary Ross is out. He couldn't get the money he wanted, but is saying it was the aggressive turnaround time on the production that caused him to walk away. Now they can hopefully hire a director that is more comfortable with action sequences and one who doesn't need to rely on the schlocky shaky-cam.
Thursday, March 29, 2012
Privacy
I have not been writing much because I have been so livid about a number of privacy issues that I have not known where to begin.
The large number of anti-women laws being proposed has me at my wit's end (link). Why is it that old, white, male politicians feel they have any right to address any aspect of a woman's reproduction? It would be just as easy to introduce laws that require chemical or medical sterilization, neutering, or castration of men, so why not do that? And using religion or faith as an excuse absurd. No law that is founded on a specific religion's belief system, even if 80% of Americans follow that religion, will stand in the Supreme Court. That's the whole point of the separation of church and state; so that no one religion (or religious ideals) will be promoted above another.
I have no issues with having religious freedom clauses to some reproductive health laws. For example, "Obamacare" wants every health plan to offer reproductive health to women. Some companies/groups cry foul, like churches. If their faith specifically says providing condoms, birth control, and abortions are against their faith, and they actively teach that in their ministry, I have no issue with them asking for and being granted an exception. What will happen is that those companies that then hire women will find that the women will not stick around very long once they learn their heath care is compromised, unless they are of the same faith as the owners/operators and agree with having no coverage in this area. I have female friends in nearly every religion and of both stronger and weaker faiths and my experience tells me these companies will have to do away with this exemption or lose workers. Women will not stand for this.
As an addendum to this issue, many lawmakers are also proposing cutting funding to Planned Parenthood because "it provides abortions." Well, any quick search on the Internet can provide you with a variety of sources that show that, of all the funding provided to Planned Parenthood, only about 3% goes toward abortions. And even then only certain locations provide it. So, these lawmakers are planning to cease funding one of the nation's most effective and critical providers of reproductive health care and advice, that actively promotes ALL types of birth control (including abstinence and adoption, two favorites of most of these lawmakers) because of certain Planned Parenthood facilities in specific locations that are, frankly, just providing the services that the community in which they reside require.
The flaw in these lawmakers' plan is that they seem to only care for the child before it is born. Once born, they do not seem to care that it goes into an incredibly overtaxed adoption system that cannot handle the children it already has, let alone the thousands more that will inundate and overwhelm the system if abortion is made illegal. Why are they not proposing more funding for adoption services, foster care practices, and schools?
Another privacy-related article caught my attention (link). Basically, these companies have policies that say the first action you must do for them is break a binding legal agreement (the Facebook EULA) in order to gain employment there. If you are willing to break that legally binding agreement, why would you worry about what you say, following their edicts while working for them, or adhere to any stipulations with them if and when you leave their company? Do they give password access to you of all of the other people that work there, so that you can see if anyone there is saying anything that you do not agree with? Maybe you are Jewish and the owner constantly posts anti-Semitic jokes on his Facebook page. Knowing this could profoundly influence whether you want to work there. What you say and do outside of work, when on your own time, is none of their business.
I do like that Facebook posted a response to this, and told its users not to do what these HR people are asking (link).
Lastly, while America managed to (momentarily) stop the SOPA/PIPA laws, much of the rest of the world is still steaming ahead with similar laws. ACTA, Bill C-30, and Bill C-11 are still being pushed forward in various places, including much of western Europe (ACTA) and Canada (C-30, C-11). Each is just as horrible for internet privacy as SOPA/PIPA. In Canada, enough people mobilized that C-30 is at least momentarily stopped, and the lawmakers have made changes to C-11 but it still moves forward. (So many links, I won't even post. Just search on any of these bill names.)
It is funny how the entertainment industry has fought (and eventually lost) each time a new technology has come about that has "threatened [their] way of business." And yet, the business has always been more profitable afterward and continues to be incredibly profitable now. They do not need these laws, they need to use the technology to get their products out to the people in a cost efficient and equitable manner. What these industries really fear is that the Internet makes them obsolete. Artists can now produce their own albums and make their own movies, post them online for free or put them on eBay or Amazon for a fee and make money without them. These laws are, in essence, ways to stymie free enterprise and keep artists only options to be under draconian contracts to the MPAA and the RIAA.
Even the Trayvon Williams case breaks down to a privacy issue. This neighborhood was a gated community, but it still felt the need for a neighborhood watch. One watch member felt threatened enough by a kid about 100 lbs smaller and lighter than him, wearing a hoodie and carrying candy and a drink walking through "his" private domain that he decided to chase the boy (against the explicit request of the police), stop him, and shoot him. And, because of the way the laws are written in Florida, he may just get away with murder. All because he felt threatened by a boy who was a different color than he is.
When 9/11 happened, people gave up some of their right to privacy in order to "catch the terrorists." And the government took those rights and asked for more. After ten years of taking, the people have had enough and are fighting back. The government (and the corporations that practically are the government these days) are shocked and surprised at the backlash. So much so that the new verb "SOPAed" has been introduced into the vernacular. It basically means "to be unexpectedly assaulted by large public backlash." After a decade of whitewashing the theft of our rights, the people are fighting back and government is frightened. And that is GOOD. As Thomas Jefferson said, "When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When people fear the government, there is tyranny."
It is time for governments and corporations to start fearing the people again. It is time to take back our rights. It is time for a revolution.
Addendum
This article will make you never want to use a PC again! Basically it tells you that every IT and company on the planet is trying to subvert your PC and allow spying. The part about the PA school was particularly disturbing; who thought taking photos of nude, under-aged students was a good idea?
The large number of anti-women laws being proposed has me at my wit's end (link). Why is it that old, white, male politicians feel they have any right to address any aspect of a woman's reproduction? It would be just as easy to introduce laws that require chemical or medical sterilization, neutering, or castration of men, so why not do that? And using religion or faith as an excuse absurd. No law that is founded on a specific religion's belief system, even if 80% of Americans follow that religion, will stand in the Supreme Court. That's the whole point of the separation of church and state; so that no one religion (or religious ideals) will be promoted above another.
I have no issues with having religious freedom clauses to some reproductive health laws. For example, "Obamacare" wants every health plan to offer reproductive health to women. Some companies/groups cry foul, like churches. If their faith specifically says providing condoms, birth control, and abortions are against their faith, and they actively teach that in their ministry, I have no issue with them asking for and being granted an exception. What will happen is that those companies that then hire women will find that the women will not stick around very long once they learn their heath care is compromised, unless they are of the same faith as the owners/operators and agree with having no coverage in this area. I have female friends in nearly every religion and of both stronger and weaker faiths and my experience tells me these companies will have to do away with this exemption or lose workers. Women will not stand for this.
As an addendum to this issue, many lawmakers are also proposing cutting funding to Planned Parenthood because "it provides abortions." Well, any quick search on the Internet can provide you with a variety of sources that show that, of all the funding provided to Planned Parenthood, only about 3% goes toward abortions. And even then only certain locations provide it. So, these lawmakers are planning to cease funding one of the nation's most effective and critical providers of reproductive health care and advice, that actively promotes ALL types of birth control (including abstinence and adoption, two favorites of most of these lawmakers) because of certain Planned Parenthood facilities in specific locations that are, frankly, just providing the services that the community in which they reside require.
The flaw in these lawmakers' plan is that they seem to only care for the child before it is born. Once born, they do not seem to care that it goes into an incredibly overtaxed adoption system that cannot handle the children it already has, let alone the thousands more that will inundate and overwhelm the system if abortion is made illegal. Why are they not proposing more funding for adoption services, foster care practices, and schools?
Another privacy-related article caught my attention (link). Basically, these companies have policies that say the first action you must do for them is break a binding legal agreement (the Facebook EULA) in order to gain employment there. If you are willing to break that legally binding agreement, why would you worry about what you say, following their edicts while working for them, or adhere to any stipulations with them if and when you leave their company? Do they give password access to you of all of the other people that work there, so that you can see if anyone there is saying anything that you do not agree with? Maybe you are Jewish and the owner constantly posts anti-Semitic jokes on his Facebook page. Knowing this could profoundly influence whether you want to work there. What you say and do outside of work, when on your own time, is none of their business.
I do like that Facebook posted a response to this, and told its users not to do what these HR people are asking (link).
Lastly, while America managed to (momentarily) stop the SOPA/PIPA laws, much of the rest of the world is still steaming ahead with similar laws. ACTA, Bill C-30, and Bill C-11 are still being pushed forward in various places, including much of western Europe (ACTA) and Canada (C-30, C-11). Each is just as horrible for internet privacy as SOPA/PIPA. In Canada, enough people mobilized that C-30 is at least momentarily stopped, and the lawmakers have made changes to C-11 but it still moves forward. (So many links, I won't even post. Just search on any of these bill names.)
It is funny how the entertainment industry has fought (and eventually lost) each time a new technology has come about that has "threatened [their] way of business." And yet, the business has always been more profitable afterward and continues to be incredibly profitable now. They do not need these laws, they need to use the technology to get their products out to the people in a cost efficient and equitable manner. What these industries really fear is that the Internet makes them obsolete. Artists can now produce their own albums and make their own movies, post them online for free or put them on eBay or Amazon for a fee and make money without them. These laws are, in essence, ways to stymie free enterprise and keep artists only options to be under draconian contracts to the MPAA and the RIAA.
Even the Trayvon Williams case breaks down to a privacy issue. This neighborhood was a gated community, but it still felt the need for a neighborhood watch. One watch member felt threatened enough by a kid about 100 lbs smaller and lighter than him, wearing a hoodie and carrying candy and a drink walking through "his" private domain that he decided to chase the boy (against the explicit request of the police), stop him, and shoot him. And, because of the way the laws are written in Florida, he may just get away with murder. All because he felt threatened by a boy who was a different color than he is.
When 9/11 happened, people gave up some of their right to privacy in order to "catch the terrorists." And the government took those rights and asked for more. After ten years of taking, the people have had enough and are fighting back. The government (and the corporations that practically are the government these days) are shocked and surprised at the backlash. So much so that the new verb "SOPAed" has been introduced into the vernacular. It basically means "to be unexpectedly assaulted by large public backlash." After a decade of whitewashing the theft of our rights, the people are fighting back and government is frightened. And that is GOOD. As Thomas Jefferson said, "When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When people fear the government, there is tyranny."
It is time for governments and corporations to start fearing the people again. It is time to take back our rights. It is time for a revolution.
Addendum
This article will make you never want to use a PC again! Basically it tells you that every IT and company on the planet is trying to subvert your PC and allow spying. The part about the PA school was particularly disturbing; who thought taking photos of nude, under-aged students was a good idea?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)