Star Trek Into Darkness AKA 'Fan Service: The Movie'

        Spoiler Warning: There are a few reveals and plot points from the new Star Trek film discussed in this article so if you haven’t watched it yet and don't want things to be spoiled, stop reading NOW.

        Star Trek Into Darkness is undeniably filled with almost a ridiculous amount of fan service. Let’s go through the list shall we?

        First off, Khan. Most fans saw that coming despite the filmmaker’s attempts at trying to keep that one a shock reveal. One of the most famous of the Trek antagonists, he was bound to make an appearance somewhere down the line in this rebooted series.

        Others: the epic cry of “Khaaaaaaaan!” (this time by Spock instead of Kirk – oooh twist!), the tribbles, the klingons, Kirk bedding more alien species, references to the Prime Directive, Bones saying, “Dammit Jim, I’m a doctor not a (insert different occupation here)…” and so the list goes on.

        The thing is, I’m not particularly a Trek fan. Apart from the odd random episode caught on TV, I haven’t watched any of the (many) different series or watched any of these previous 10(!) Trek movies before the series reboot in 2009. And yet still, I got all these references. God knows what it was like for actual Trekkies…

        Now I don't have anything against the odd bit of fan service per se, (it serves to reward and give a knowing wink to long term fans) but the problem arises when it comes at the expense of story and drama. Was this film trying too hard to be a throwback to the original enterprise adventures (cough cough Wrath of Khan…)? Surely the whole point of a ‘reboot’ (as opposed to simply a ‘remake’) is to reinvent the original and take it in a new direction and not just ape the past? Even the crew haven’t really changed since the first film – once again, often feeling like they are just doing impressions of the character’s original versions.

        This is supposed to go in a new direction - it's an alternate timeline to the original Trek – as the Leonard Nimoy cameo appearance as the aged 'original' Spock once again shows up to confirm (as well as to dish out sagely advice) – yet again another instance of fan service. What about new stories? New villains? What happened to exploring uncharted space and ‘boldly going where no-one has gone before’? Isn’t that what Trek is supposed to be about? They don't even get to that until the end of the movie!

        On a bit of a tangent – this film also had the problem of its characters escaping a highly against-the-odds peril without a scratch time and time again. Much like the recent The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey, too many scenes of characters only justescaping certain death over and over eventually renders them invulnerable in the audiences eyes and thus negates much of the dramatic tension and real sense of threat that these scenes are supposed to convey. Sure, you have a few random crewmembers getting sucked out into space and killed when the enterprise takes a beating but it’s never any of the main characters that are at risk. After you witness Kirk and Spock escape an impossible situation for the umpteenth time you just know they are never really going to be at any risk at any point – with some mathematically impossible timing/chance and/or deus ex machina always there at the last minute to whisk them away to safety. But that's just how some modern blockbuster action movies are expected to be like I guess.

        Anyway, back to the main point – what are the wider ramifications of all this? Well, as only a casual fan of Star Trek, I’m not all that bothered about the direction that these new Star Trek films are taking. In fact, I rather enjoyed the film for what it was and particular praise goes to Benedict Cumberbatch for his standout performance (basically imagine what Sherlock would be like as a baddie - a Sherlock that can crush Robocop’s head and even break out of a Vulcan death grip!), despite not having much to do except run and punch in his latter scenes. The effects are top notch and there is significantly less lens flare on the bridge this time around.

        No, the bigger issue here is the fact that one man now has directorial power over possibly the two biggest sci-fi franchises of all time. Just think about that for a second. That’s pretty insane. Star Wars (the originals at least) have been so much more influential in my youth than Star Trekever was and I dread to think about how the new Star Wars films may turn out to be like under the hand of J.J. Abrams. Sure, they will be slick and exciting (with characters escaping from certain death over and over again) and at least they will be different from Lucas’ bloated and self-indulgent sequels – but at what cost?

        Will we have someone having their hand cut off by a lightsaber? Harrison Ford uttering “I’ve got a bad feeling about this…”? A stormtrooper being controlled by the force, repeating  “These aren’t the droids you’re looking for…”? A squid shouting “It’s a Trap!” as he swivels around on his chair? Or a character screaming out “Noooooooooooooo!!!” in some ridiculously melodramatic moment of realisation?

        I guess that all remains to be seen.

        At the end of the day however, we can take comfort in the fact that the new Star Wars films (the first due in 2015) aren’t reboots or remakes but a direct canon continuation of the film series. Will they dare to try something new or just fill the film with constant throwbacks and fan service? A franchise as monumentally huge as Star Wars is unlikely to flop on release whatever happens, but it will be interesting to see how they turn out. Lucas’ prequels, despite having many flaws, at least weren’t afraid to try something new with an established and beloved franchise.

        Let’s hope Abrams will follow a similar path. Fan service can only get you so far…

20th May 2013

Read More

How I Decide Which Games Are Worth Playing

        Sorry, it’s been a while since I’ve written anything – the main reason being my taking time to steadily work through my huge backlog of games. Bought, borrowed and rented, they have been piling up on my table, begging to be played. I like to give each game the attention it deserves, so rarely do I play through more than one game at time – only moving onto the next once I have played through their story at least once and watched all those names roll up the screen.

  

        Recently I have worked my way through the following: the occasionally creepy but ultimately flawed Silent Hill: Downpour, the hideously botched Aliens: Colonial Marines, Borderlands 2 (the only game on this list that I actually got halfway through and could not be bothered to finish), two playthroughs of the utterly brilliant Dishonored (which you can read more about HERE), the visually stunning and yet slightly too ‘on-the-rails’ Metal Gear Rising: Revengeance, the western re-invention of demon slayer Dante in DMC: Devil May Cry and finally, yet another complete playthrough each of the superlative Demon’s Souls and Dark Souls (still quite possibly my favourite games of all time) to accompany a friend through his first time through both and to play the DLC expansion for the latter that wasn't available the first time I played it).

        Oh, and I’m currently half way through the excellent Tomb Raider reboot…

        What is this compulsion of mine to spend so much time playing these games? Is it an addiction? Or a way of life? Does it enrich me in some way or is it simply a waste of time and I should instead be playing outside with all the other chil-de-ren?

        Most other ‘dedicated’ gamers that I know either only play a few titles religiously, or they like to play many games (especially ones that have just come out) but don't really get around to finishing any of them. I sit very much in the middle ground - there are many games that I am interested in playing but at the same time I generally don't like not finishing games (The exception being when I get the feeling that it’s really not worth the investment of my time).

        Woah Woah, hold up! I hear the fan boys cry, You finished the abysmal Colonial Marines but not Borderlands 2?! Well yeah. As bad as Colonial Marines was, I was only renting it and I knew I could finish it in a few hours just to see how the story panned out. With Borderlands 2 on the other hand (also a rental) half way through it I could sense that the mechanics of the game and the ridiculous amount of travelling was just really artificially lengthening out the whole experience for me not to mention the monotony of the combat had began to sink in. I knew it would take many more hours of repetitious (and not particularly enjoyable) gameplay to get to the end of a story that I ultimately didn't really care about - and so I left it. Time was better spent playing something else.

        You see, it’s all subjective about finding what is ‘worth’ your time and what is not. I know many people who rave about Skyrim. Me? Couldn't get into it at all. Get over it. Whereas Dark Souls… I’ll probably continue it into New Game Plus (once again) after I’ve cleared a few more games in the current backlog.

        And I still have a few unopened games sitting on my shelf, the Black Ops 2 single player campaign that I still haven’t touched and not to mention a handful of PSN titles and games on my Mac that I bought in sales but have yet to even start. And by the time I finish some of these I’m sure the more recent games to have come out would have dropped in price or arrive at my doorstep via the good folks at Lovefilm.

        I guess what I have learned (there’s always a lesson somewhere in there folks) is that for me, whether or not a game is worth playing (or more specifically spending time in playing) comes in two parts. Firstly, whether or not the game is worth playing through once, and then beyond that, whether or not a game is worth keeping to play through again in the future (possibly getting the plat too). If not, get rid. Move onto something else – life is too short.

        So I guess the games I play fall into three categories then: games I feel are not worth my time (eg: Borderlands 2, Skyrim, Fallout 3 - notice a pattern here?), games that I feel are worth my time to play through once either for the story or to see all there is to see in the game (SH Downpour, MGR: Revengeance, DMC – alternate endings, secrets etc can just be viewed on youtube these days without having to slog through the whole game again), and finally games that I can keep coming back to and replay indefinitely because they are a true joy to play (the Uncharted trilogy, the ‘Souls games, the Batman: Arkham games…). Invariably it is these games that I usually end up getting the Platinum trophy in too – just because I enjoy spending the extra amount of time needed to do that. These are the ones that I generally tend to keep and not sell on.

        Still, a lot of it is down to personal preference and although there are definite stinkers out there (yes YOU, Colonial Marines…) it’s all just swings and roundabouts – different people enjoy spending different amounts of time playing different things and that's that.

        It's also about priorities. As with most people, I find that I have less time to play games as I get older – so sussing out what is worth my time and what is not is often at the forefront of my mind when starting up a new game. If I don't intend to finish it, better to bail out early and move on to the next. That's why renting games is so great for me.

        So what’s the point of all this? Have you ever called into question your own personal game playing habits? Do you stockpile hundreds of unfinished games, or are you a completionist too?
        Never mind… just let me get back to finishing Tomb Raider so I can decide whether it’s worth going for the plat or not.

9th May 2013

Read More