First Impressions: UTADA's This Is The One

This Is The One
UTADA's 3rd English album
14th March, 2009
(Japanese release)

I was a bit skeptical about this album. I wasn't all that fond of Utada's previous English album, Exodus, because I found a lot of the lyrics to be really awkward ("You're easy breezy, and I'm Japanesey"?). In general, I'm much more fond of her older stuff than her newer stuff... I didn't like her most recent Japanese album, Heart Station, all that much either. I didn't listen to the "Come Back to Me" single when it came out, so I was walking into this album blind more or less. Here are my first impressions during my first run through of the album:

TRACK 01: On and On (YouTube it)
Very upbeat opening; I like the guys yelling in the background in addition to Utada's voice, which is gorgeous. Steady beat continues into main melody, and it's very energizing in that you-gotta-tap-your-feet-and-move-your-body kinda way. Awesome transition into the chorus via a sudden silence in the background, same with the transition into the second chorus. This song definitely has a very American feel to it, which I almost find surprising because I didn't think Exodus was very American at all. I really love all the layers of voices in this -- the guy in the background just keeps going and going, then there's Utada's voice, and at the bridge and end, there's a second layer of Utada's voice; it's a very nice combination of sounds. What a great way to start the album!

TRACK 02: Merry Christmas Mr. Lawrence - FYI
Loud, commanding piano intro followed by another steady beat and Utada's familiar "ah, ah, ah." Lyrics sound Japanese for a moment, but gets clearer very fast. The repetitive nature of the lyrics goes really well with the continued beat. The lyrics themselves are pretty interesting -- she uses a lot of modern elements such as "FYI" and mentions of mp3s. It's very characteristic of Utada in a way. Some of the piano in the bridge feels very Asian... it's kind of strange that mixed-culture elements seem to stand out so much in her music because it obviously makes sense. I mean, I find it less jarring when it's as obvious as singing in both Japanese and English in the same song, but when it's as subtle as the feel of the sounds, it's almost disconcerting. Final chorus is as upbeat as ever, but then returns to the piano, just a bit slower, and fades.

TRACK 03: Apple and Cinnamon (YouTube it)
More upbeat piano and steady back beat. Really like this minor key. Opening lyrics aren't very impressive, and the spacing of the words to fit the tempo feels a little forced... gets better though -- I really love Utada's lower notes; I think they sound much better than her higher notes, which are a little strained and airy. Chorus feels very mixed as far as the aesthetics of the sound. I like the repeated portions of the verses better; the flow feels more natural. Aw, man, I hate it when people sing with bad grammar: "I can't believe that you and me..." It's usually done for a rhyming reason, I know, but it always bothers me. I mean, if you can force "love" and "us" to rhyme, then surely you can find a way to use "I" instead of "me"...? That's the grammar nazi in me though. Bridge has some interesting buzzing... back to the chorus, and some weird, airy "ah"s before the end.

TRACK 04: Taking My Money Back (YouTube it)
Starts with a very pretty piano accompanied with some distortion, not as upbeat as the others. Voice starts kind of suddenly, but it's soothing and crisp. Lyrics seem startlingly familiar -- I feel like I've heard all these words before in other songs by other people. I suppose the theme and sentiment of the song is far from original, but it's still a little disappointing to hear that certain lines seem almost word-for-word from other things I've heard. I'm not particularly fond of Hikki's "ooh, ooh, ooh, I, I, I~" for the chorus, though that does set the sound of the song apart from other things it might remind me of. The piano and beats in the background are pretty consistent throughout, and it fades out at the end. It's not a terrible song, I just hope that the tired subject matter doesn't come back for the rest of the album; then again, perhaps it's this kind of subject matter that will sell her more albums in the States?

TRACK 05: This One (Crying Like a Child)
Beautiful guitar and soft drums for the intro. Whoa! Utada's voice sounds really different at the beginning and slowly works into a more familiar sound. Some really nice piano starts working its way in also. Chorus brings in a deeper backup voice, but I can't tell if it's her or someone else. Lyrics have a nice ring and beat to them -- subject is still a little on the cliche side, but much more passable -- and the feeling behind the voice sounds great. The melody is very refreshing... the more I hear the chorus, the more I think I like it. Outro brings back more of the pretty guitar, then end.

TRACK 06: Automatic Part II
Whoa, really awesome intro -- great bass beat and synth. Opening lyrics sound really strange and have a low echo. The background music remains good, but I'm really unsure about Utada's vocals here. It's particularly strange because the original Automatic is one of my favorite songs by her; to have it revisited now in such a manner is... disorienting? The lyrics being in English is strange enough, but the "yeah"s and "ah"s really throw me off too. It's a bit better if I try to forget the original; I mean, it's far from being a terrible song, and it isn't exactly just a remix. It feels very Utada, anyway.

TRACK 07: Dirty Desire
Vocals start immediately, very ominous, but then the main melody starts and the steady beat starts up. Lyrics flow very nicely... except... did she just say, "I love you long time"? Wow. I don't even know what to say to that. Chorus is very catchy; the beat is fun, and the song feels more American again. Hahaha, maybe part of it is just the subject matter though. Nice overlapping of voices for the chorus, full of Utada's standard "ah"s. Bridge has some interesting synth action along with the beat. Outro/bridge #2 sounds really weird; other voices come in and the melody kind of departs from the rest of the song. Then it fades and ends. Man, I have such mixed feelings about this song.

TRACK 08: Poppin'
Spy music intro? Then the beat starts with a round of back and forth "hey"s and some very high-pitched vocals that I'm not so fond of. There's a secondary vocal here that's decidedly not Utada (it's slightly British sounding?), but most of Utada's vocals are in the high register, which I just don't like listening to... so thin and airy. The background music really reminds me of this weird mix of spy and horror music... complete with howling wolves at some point. Bridge seems like it's from a different song almost, but then it's back to Utada's high vocals. And weird distortion. I do think this is my least favorite song thus far.

TRACK 09: Come Back to Me (YouTube it)
Dramatic piano opening, but then it goes to a completely different sound -- a very poppy, upbeat-but-sad kind of thing. Lyrics start out nice, but then she mentions "Photoshop[ping] all [her] bad memories," and I can't help but think that that's ridiculously corny. It's nice to see those modern references, but come on... Chorus is pretty though. Second verse's lyrics aren't terribly better, but there's no more Photoshop at least. Second chorus extension is all in that high voice, ugh, but the beat is catchy. Chorus lyrics are pretty cheesy too, actually, but the melody is just awesome... final chorus has some nice canon action going on too, and I am a sucker for canons. Some pretty "la, la, la, la"s at the end... then fade out.

TRACK 10: Me Muero
This sounds like oldschool arcade music to start with. Specifically, I suddenly got visions of Streets of Rage 2 on Sega Genesis, haha. Lyrics sound a little forced at first, but it's not that bad... there's some nicely placed whistling; the background music is pretty soothing and lounge-like. It's really weird hearing Utada trying to sound Latina though -- her accent seems to change with certain words. Most of the song seems like the chorus, haha, and this song feels a lot shorter than it actually is because of that.

TRACK 11: Come Back To Me (Seamus Haji & Paul Emanuel Radio Edit)
Starts off like a DDR intro... and moves into a DDR-like song! The heavy beat works really nicely with the lyrics though; it's a well done remix. I wouldn't mind dancing to this, anyway, though it's still a bit on the slow side. Hm, just realized that Utada goes from first to third to first person in the second verse -- kinda weird? Final chorus has a resurgence of energy and it speeds up. I'd really like to hear an ultra-fast version of this song now... maybe this last track will do it.

TRACK 12: Come Back To Me (Quentin Harris Radio Edit)
Well, it sounds faster! Kinda? Hm, nope, first verse seems about the same tempo as the previous mix. Some neat distortion and random noises in the back though -- is that a cow bell? I hear a cow bell. Still lovin' this chorus, but yeah, not as fast as I'd like to hear it. Bridge sounds pretty different; it's always good to hear more significant changes between remixes of a song (Utada did like a dozen remixes of Exodus '04, but most of them sounded the same).

OVERALL: I'm definitely much happier with this album than I was with Exodus. The overall sound of This Is The One feels much more connected and cohesive, and I think it has a much more accessible sound for an American audience. Many of the songs still have a peculiar Japanese feel to them, but I think the less obscure subject matter along with the strong pop sound will push it a bit further in the States compared to Exodus. The mixed format release schedule should also help a little. The physical US release won't have the two remix tracks at the end, which is fine, though I wonder why they also switched up the track order for the US release. They move "Come Back to Me" and "Me Muero" to the beginning and "On and On" to the end; the rest of the listing is the same. I guess it doesn't really matter though, this album doesn't really have any songs that lead into each other, so order isn't that big a deal.

But yeah, pretty good album here. A few nice songs, a few less attractive songs, but it's an altogether decent mix. I don't see Utada Hikaru breaking into the US mainstream anytime soon, but she's taking the right steps if that's her goal. Unfortunately, it might be that going for a more American sound will sacrifice some of her Japanese popularity. This Is The One is Hikki's first album to not top the Oricon weekly charts (it debuted at #3) since Precious -- her first album. Meanwhile, it's just broken the top 20 downloaded albums on iTunes.
Read the rest of this entry...

Review: Antique Bakery

I always pick up the most random series in the amidst of finals and such, and Antique Bakery was just one of those series, I guess. It was short and available, so I watched it. Now here is the finished review. I think it's going to be one of those very forgetful sort of series; honestly, it didn't leave much of an impression on me at all except that I think the Japanese pronunciation of "cake" is kind of hilarious. I'm also ever impressed with Mamoru Miyano's voice acting abilities. And lastly, screw what anyone else says, Antique Bakery isn't actually a shounen-ai series.

This is my first review on MAL since its review overhaul though, and I must say, I really, really miss that BBCode. I am still using my old review template, so I still wrote the review containing BBCode assuming that it would just be stripped out when I actually posted. Instead, MAL posts the review, code and all, forcing me to manually weed out what I'd put in. This made me realize just how much I do actually use italics to emphasize certain words so they're easier to read mentally.

I also still hate how jumbled the review looks without bolding to announce each subsection. I suppose I should just swap to "traditional" reviewing and write everything in that cohesive essay format, but I don't want to. :| Read the rest of this entry...

A Collector's Mindset and Why Pokémon Will Never Die

Today was Pokémon Platinum's North American launch date. Platinum is the 12th of the regular Pokémon games and rounds off the 4th generation, so I wonder when we should expect to hear about either 5th generation game plans or 2nd generation remake plans. A lot of people think that Pokémon should just end already -- that they've milked the cash cow long enough and that no one wants more. Around when the 3rd generation was launching, I felt the same way, but now I'm kind of indifferent. Or really, in some way, I want to see just how long this franchise can keep its momentum, especially since it doesn't show many signs of even slowing.

More than a decade ago, when I was collecting the Pokémon TCG along with every other kid in the neighborhood, my father told me that these sorts of hobbies were just money-wasters and that Pokémon would be dead in five or ten years. The holographic Charizard that was going for $75+ on eBay wouldn't be worth a dime then. Well, it's been more than five or ten years later. That holographic Charizard still goes for about $10+ if you know who to sell to; all things considered, I'd say that's damn good. It's quite a bit more than a dime, at least. The first edition holo Charizard will still fetch you $75 at least, if not $100+. And as for Pokémon being dead? Ha! Sapporo just got a brand new Pokémon Center, and even in the US, Pokémon's presence in stores is being expanded once again. I don't think it's unlikely to think that the Nintendo World in Manhattan might actually be turned back into a Pokémon Center -- I mean, it isn't like they sell much else there anyway.

Satoshi Tajiri really did have a breakthrough idea when he came out with Pocket Monsters. Considering Japan's already rampant collector's attitude, creating a franchise based around collecting is just... genius. To some extent, maybe collecting runs in my blood -- being a huge pack rat also contributes -- but I think that everyone's got at least a little bit of collector's urge to them. Few things are as satisfying as having a completed collection, but each little piece along the way is a great milestone too. It's true even for things that might never be complete -- stamp collections, video game, manga, and DVD collections, whatever. And so, Pokémon has become very much the same. You will likely never "catch them all," but that doesn't make the games any less fun. It doesn't make you feel any less triumphant every time you hit the current monster cap.

Currently, that cap is 493. A lot of people are shocked when I tell them this because they stopped paying attention as soon as the number got bigger than 151. That's fine. Really, there's nothing wrong with having lost interest a long time ago, but I must say I'm a bit tired of people adamantly insisting that it should have stopped there. To them, I ask, why? Why should it have stopped?

From a business point of view, there is no reason to stop as long as the games keep selling, and they have kept selling. They have sold amazingly well again and again and again. Every successive generation of Pokémon has seen the two games at the top of sales charts for at least a month after release. The third game of each generation goes simiarly. My Gamestop manager friend told me today that Platinum was sold out by noon, not including the dozens of preorders that were also picked up. Pokémon's appeal has proven to transcend generation as well. My seven year-old brother (there's kind of a big age gap between us) loves Pokémon just as much as my other brother and I did ten years ago. And hell, I still love Pokémon. That's a different kind of generation-transcention. I have just as many friends now, if not more, that still love and actively play and collect Pokémon as I did a decade ago. This may just be because I have a nerdier circle of friends, but the fact remains. Pokémon has kept selling to new and old fans alike, so why should Nintendo stop?

From a fan and gamer's point of view, things are a little different, but the bottom line is mostly the same: the fans keep buying it. Obviously, this means they still want to play. I remember when all the rumors of the 2nd generation -- Gold and Silver -- were fresh on the Internet. (Oh, I love remembering the Internet of the 90's.) It was a huge. There were fake screenshots and outrageous speculations abound, but everyone was excited for it. Sites like PsyPoke and Pokémon Village were teeming with information and some of the most active fan communities on the web (is it sad that I remember these sites' names?). I don't think there was a single fan of the original game that wasn't piss-their-pants excited for G/S.

G/S did not disappoint, but there was a slightly longer lag between the 2nd and 3rd generation, as well as a platform jump. To be honest, I was excited for Ruby/Sapphire also and really wanted Sapphire for months and months after its launch. There were upgrades and updates that hadn't made it into the 2nd generation, and I was eager for more. I had just filled my Pokédex with the 251 (with some help from Gameshark for that Serebii), but I was eager for more. Unfortunately, as my parents were unwilling to invest in a new game system and as I was unable to get it on my own at the time, I lost interest in Pokémon for a few years. In that time, I suppose I got a little bitter towards the franchise -- I also thought a lot of the new additions to the lineup were retarded-looking. The games should just end because I can't play them anymore! But that was just me. Meanwhile, everyone up was eating it up all over again, game magazines and the ilk included. They all said that it was essentially the same game with fancier features, but dammit, it was still fun!

When FireRed/LeafGreen released, because I wasn't really paying attention anymore, I perceived it as a pure business greed. They're out of ideas, I thought, now they're just re-releasing old games! (Though money was probably indeed part of the equation, there is also the very logical explanation of wanting to have a way of getting first, and some second, generation Pokémon on the new Advance generation platform since R/S wasn't backwards-compatible.) When Diamond/Pearl released in 2007, I didn't have much of an idea what was going on anymore, but even then, whenever I heard about it in passing, I wanted to play it.

Long story short, I bought Pokémon Pearl that September and borrowed my friend's DS to play it on. For two weeks, I spent 3-6 hours a day playing it until I finished the active storyline and beat the Elite Four. It is still an amazingly fun game. Yes, a lot of the newer Pokémon designs are silly, but hey, there were a lot of stupid designs in the original if you think about it. (Seriously, Mr. Mime? Jynx? Racist Pokémon of the century! Golem? Muk? Exeggcute?) Some designs are just rehashed ideas, and I think that's my only quip with Pokémon at this point -- there are thousands and thousands of animal species in the world to base Pokémon off of, we do not need another Pikachu or Pidgey clone! Nevertheless, there are still a few gems: Rotom, especially Lawnmower!Rotom, is probably the coolest thing ever. XD

The interaction-centered gameplay is charming enough on its own, really, and a lot of people don't even pay attention to the "gotta collect 'em all" mantra, but those that do, like myself, really have fun with it. I felt good passing the 100 Pokémon caught mark; I felt good catching 200 of them. I felt good catching 300. Currently, I am just short of 400, but I'll probably feel good passing that too. It doesn't get old. I don't really know why. I suppose a lot of collectors lose interest after a while, no matter what they're collecting. But adding a hundred new targets every few years somehow does manage to keep Pokémon interesting. It's very simple. It's like the post office doing special releases of stamps every few months. It is the simplest tactic ever, but it works.

Pokémon isn't confined by its games either. There is an amazing among of Pokémon merchandise out there, especially in Japan, where they are still very much in love with their little critters. I really find it interesting just how much that country obsesses over all of its pop culture icons, not just Pokémon. Doraemon, Detective Conan, Hello Kitty, Gundam -- so many things retain worship-worthy statuses within their culture decade after decade. If there's only Japan to consider, it's easy to say that Pokémon will last forever, but that its still got International momentum, that's even more amazing.

Back to the merchandise though, the market for various Pokégoods is pretty incredible. According to Gin, its main maintainer, tens of thousands of dollars change hands on the Pokémon Collectors community on Livejournal every month. Collectors are from all over the world and the general mood is obsessive. Very obsessive. Most collectors like to focus on a few specific Pokémon. More ambitious ones will go after certain types. Since most Pokémon merch is sold only in Japan, and since many items are promo-only or otherwise retardedly hard to find online, its common for deputy services to be used. Collectors of Eeveelutions in particular face daunting prices for some very sought-after items. Says Gin, "[T]he person using brianjapan just paid about 220-240$ (after fees) for a one centimeter long [U]mbreon." Collecting Pokémon is SERIOUS BUSINESS, for real.

Collectors are crazy. I know because I'm one too. And that is why I also know that Pokémon is not going to die. Sure, there are collectors for almost every franchise in existence, but are they as widespread as they are for Pokémon? How many collectors of Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles do you know? Of Evangelion? And what other franchise has the sheer volume of things to collect? It's hard to collect if there are only a few items available. But with almost five hundred Pokémon and at least a dozen pieces of merch for each of them (even the random, unpopular ones. I'm not kidding!), Pokémon will not die. Not as long as people are willing to catch them all over and over again and to shell out some thirty thousand yen for a tiny figurine. I don't mind anymore. As long as it's still fun, Nintendo can keep at it as long as they damn well please and it'll be all right with me. ♥ I, for one, would really love to see an Advance generation remake of Gold/Silver to go along with FireRed/LeafGreen.

In closing, I'll leave you with some of my collection, though honestly, it's very modest compared to most I know.

The bulk of my Lapras collection. I am missing a lot of plush releases of Lapras, but I'm working on it. :3

Below is every TCG card of Lapras except one (Misty's Lapras, Japanese-only card), including three versions of the card from the Fossil expansion (holo, first-edition holo, and first-edition non-holo). Also, some miscellaneous stuff likethat Lorelei card? Dunno, lol.

And here's where the collection actually sits on my shelf, along with my even more modest collections of the Totodile/Croconaw/Feraligatr evolution line and Ivysaur. Also: random other figures and crap I have.

Honestly, aside from the money issue, the only reason I don't have more toys right now is because of lack of shelf space. Poor Knuckles has to sit on the lower shelf along with that random Agumon and my DS.

And for good measure, here are my keys. Haha.

And awesomely enough? Just as I was wrapping up this post, my roommate walks in and hands me a copy of Pokémon Platinum, which I hadn't planned on getting because of time/money deficiency. I love my friends. Read the rest of this entry...

Review Scoring, Formatting and MAL

About a month ago, MyAnimeList revised its review system (this thread seems to have been damaged in the recent server problems; curiously, Xinil has chosen not to repost or fix it as he had done several other affected threads. I had to dig out this link from my browser history. Clicking the "last" post link on the page doesn't work, though you can still manually navigate the thread up to page 8, after which it redirects you to page 1). This involved three major changes:

1) The hiding of the score breakdown for every review. Previously, every review on MAL showed not only the overall score, but the individual scores for story, character, animation, sound, and enjoyment. Reviews can still fill in the subscores... there's just no way for readers to see them. (Later, Xinil conceeded and re-added the subscores, though users have to go through an extra click to get to them.)

2) The removal of BBCode support for all reviews. Reviews can no longer contain any kind of BBCode, including basic things like bold, italics, underline, and strikethrough.

3) The relocation of reviews on profile pages. Reviews are now to be accessed at the top of each user's profile instead of from the side. Users can choose to favorite reviewers so that their newest reviews appear under a tab in their own profile.

A handful of people expressed their disapproval of change #3, but most of the dissenters were more concerned with changes #1 and #2, and I was among those ranks.

Xinil did not really provide an argument in favor of #1, but eventually conceded to user complaint and re-added the subscores. Honestly, in retrospect, I think the main reason I was upset at the removal of the subscores was just that they had always been there before. Updates to a site should not take away features that were there previously, especially if no one had ever had anything bad to say about them. Users didn't have to use the subscores, but they were there. Despite that Xinil had little to say on the matter though, there was a lot of debate over the feature between both reviewers and readers alike.

A lot of people seemed to believe that numbers were too impartial and that the less numbers a review had, the better. No numbers would encourage readers to actually read through the entire review to get the writer's opinion rather than only taking a quick glance at the provided numbers (and rating a review "helpful" or "not helpful" based solely on those numbers). Some readers said that they liked the numbers because it allowed them to quickly assess a writer's opinion -- writer's said that this just made them lazy. Other writers claimed that the numbers encouraged readers to read through the actual review if the numbers intrigued them -- for example, if the reviewer scored all aspects of a series high except for animation.

I write reviews. I write a lot of reviews, and I only occasionally read others' reviews. Still, I argued in favor of the numbers and the subscores. My reasoning was that there are some things that are just easier to emphasize with numbers. For example, I loved the animation and sound in Final Fantasy VII Advent Children, but I abhored the character development and story. I expressed this in words, but it's probably just as effective for a reader to take a quick glance at my subscores and garner that information for himself: Story -- 5, Character -- 5, Animation -- 10, Sound -- 10. I will be the first to admit that I tend to write excruciatingly long reviews. Sure, it's nice if you actually read the whole thing, but I won't be offended if you're just looking for a quick, numerical summary.

A few readers also pointed out that they were afraid that reviews might contain spoilers, and thus it was safer to just glance over the scoring. With my own flaming hatred of spoilers, I make a point to never write spoilers in my reviews for MAL (except in the cases of sequel series, wherein I'll occasionally have spoilers for the parent series). I think most other reviews do the same, or at the very least, carefully mark where a spoiler might be. Still, it's not hard to sympathize with the cautious reader; it's true after all, numbers can't spoil the story for you, even if they might turn you off from it or get you overexcited.

So yes. I like my numbers, and I'm glad the subscores did eventually make it back. Now that the fight's over though, I come to realize this: I don't really use numbers for the reviews I write outside of MAL. For the live action movie and comic reviews that I write for this blog (because MAL is anime and manga only), I provide no numbers, only words. Lots and lots of words. I almost had numbers. I distinctly remember scoring the first NANA movie when I was reviewing it, but I ended up not posting them. I can't remember why, but because I'm obsessive compulsive and need to keep everything in the same format, every subsequent movie review was missing numbers.

So I guess I don't think numbers are so essential after all. I only ever assigned those numbers because the option was there. If it had never been there to begin with, it would have never bothered me. Reading a review, you get a pretty decent idea of someone's opinion, regardless of whether or not numbers are there to accompany the words. Numbers aren't essential, though they might be a cheating, kind of time saver for some. Besides, everyone's numbers seem to be different. It isn't uncommon for reviewers to have a page dedicated to explaining just what their numbers mean, especially in relation to one another. One person's 10 is not the same as another person's 10 because one person might give out 10's more frequently than others, lessening its "value." Of my reviews on MAL thus far, I've only given an overall score of 10 to two series (the Death Note manga and the Gurren Lagann anime). Most other people are less reserved with their praises, but that doesn't mean they're any more or less superior as a reviewer. We're just different people, and we review things differently.

And with subscores, the difference is even greater. Some reviewers average their subscores to create the overall score. Other reviewers, like me, assign an overall score independently of the other scores. For some series, I just feel as if some categories carry more weight than others. Sometimes, the enjoyment and charisma of a series just overrides the fact that it had shoddy animation and a cliche storyline. So I guess for readers who read reviews by a wide range of reviewers, numbers can mean very little. If you're unfamiliar with the particular reviewer, it can be hard to compare their scores with someone else's. Everyone's using a different scale, and that can't be very helpful at all.

In retrospect, I guess #1 wasn't really that big of a deal. I still like that we were able to compromise, and I still like that I can assign both an overall score and multiple subscores, but it wouldn't have been all that hard to just add those in myself at the end of every review if I really felt like it. It would have been annoying, but much more workable than #2...

Unfortunately, Xinil was much more adamant about keeping BBCode out of reviews. His position on the issue was:

I'm still set against bringing bbcode back. Newspapers, magazines, news websites...none of them use bold/italics. We don't need it.

I kind of find this to be bullshit. No one uses bold and italics? Are you serious? Font creation standards all but dictate the inclusion of a bold, italicized, and bold-italicized version of standard fonts. That is an obvious indication of their widespread use. In addition to that, newspapers and magazines have plenty of formatting via headers and margins, as well as images, to help break up the text. The tl;dr syndrome has only gotten worse with the age of the Internet, and thus, there is a need to minimalize giant walls of plaintext. If you want someone to read what you've written, you need to make it easy for them. This is why paragraphs were invented.

I've never seen anyone on MAL really abuse the use of BBCode in their reviews. Some people get a bit fancy with their tiered, multi-colored, and bullet point reviews, but all of those shenanigans are in an effort to make their opinions easier to understand -- organization isn't a crime. Myself, I like my bold and italics. They do their job: they emphasize things without having to result to CAPSLOCK, which is still "yelling" on the Internet. I'm also fond of the [url] tag because it allows me to link related reviews. It is beneficial to both me and the reader for me to link my review of the Death Note manga from my review of the Death Note anime. Similarly, I link reviews for spin-off series like SEED Supernova to their parent series because some aspects of the series, such as animation and sound, are shared between them. All right, so the linking isn't really kosher or necessary, but it's useful. At the very least, basic font formating like bold and italics should be left useable.

In the arguments for BBCode, there arose a discussion about the need to format reviews by blocking off sections for each subcategory. For this, citing professional news and review sources is actually applicable because it's true -- most reviews are just solid essays without any kind of partitions. Generally, for good reviews, all the subcategories would be covered at some point in the text anyway. Still, writing a review in sections appeals greatly to my OCD. If all the information is there regardless, does it really matter? Is there really such a huge difference between transitional phrases like "As for the characters..." and a header that declares "Characters"? The latter is easier to identify and read. Sectioning things off might make it easier for those that only want to know about a certain aspect of something. It also helps keep me, the writer, organized as well. Without those sections, it'd be much, much easier for me to ramble off in an incomprehensible mess... as if my writing wasn't rambly enough.

So here's to still wanting that BBCode back, at least in part. Unfortunately, now that the thread seems to be both hidden from the site and unusable anyway, there's no good platform on which to argue with Xinil. I'm not sure how much good logic would do him anyway; despite having asked for suggestions, he didn't seem very receptive to them. (Consider also that a majority of the legitimate threads in the Suggestions forum seem to never get a reply from him.) I dunno. Maybe it's not worth the drama.

For a little while after all the changes were made, I considered no longer using MAL as my review platform if compromises weren't made. That seemed needlessly dramatic though. I like MAL. I don't like these changes, but I still like MAL. It would be a lot of trouble for me to mirror all of my existing reviews on this blog too. I started and finished Antique Bakery on a random whim a few weeks ago, and it's sitting around on my backlog waiting to be reviewed. It'll be hard trying to find a way to emphasize things in my writing without italics, and I hate that my section headers no longer stand out for lack of bold, but... what can ya do? Oftentimes, I think I fret over this nonsense way, way too much. Read the rest of this entry...

DOGS OAV Trailer is Online!

I got back from MomoCon late last night. Still completely exhausted, and it will take me a while to catch up with everything, but it's a good thing my LJ feeds are one of the first things I check back up on because it let me know that a trailer for the upcoming DOGS OAV is now up on its website! (Click the link that says "movie" near the bottom.)


The animation looks gorgeous and, for me at least, erases many of the doubts that came with the first look at the artwork a few months back. The character designs are very faithful, as are the backgrounds, and the action. The music reminds me a lot of Baccano!, which threw me off a little at first -- it's very energetic, upbeat, and kind of hookey, which clashes with some of DOGS's darker undertones. But considering that the OAV will only follow the storyline from "Stray dogs howling through the night" rather than Bullets&Carnage, the humorous energy isn't all that misplaced.

The trailer itself isn't a great indication of story, so those unfamiliar with the manga probably won't be impressed by much, though the action does looks nice. I'm really eager to see a trailer that will show more general background music and that will show speaking parts. I listened to the first drama CD again not long ago; it still sounded great, so I'm excited to see it all match up with their animated images. Gleeeee.

In the meantime, I've got "volume 0" of Viz's release of the DOGS manga on preorder and can't wait to get it~. Read the rest of this entry...

Fans and Artists: Conventions, Fanart, Profits

The morality of fanart debate is something that comes up a lot in the community. Really, because of that alone, it isn't something I like talking about because every point has been brought up before and it's easy to find justifications and reasons for every side of the argument. But it's pretty much inevitable that I end up thinking about it from time to time, considering this absurd and haphazard major I'm in at the moment (I hesitate to say "career path"; I don't know what my career path is). I will be at MomoCon in Atlanta this weekend with a bunch of schoolmates. Many of us will be holding down tables in the Artist's Alley. Predictably, most of our merchandise features fanart.

I wonder why we do it.

Most replies will contain a list of things, but I find it a bit sad that the first response will almost always be "money." At the moment, I think it might be the first on my list too. Part of it has to do with the current economy. None of us have had any luck finding regular jobs this quarter. No one is hiring. What's the next best thing? Apparently hitting up the local cons and milking the weeaboos for all their worth. Or trying to, anyway. Because of various unfortunate conditions, I operated at a loss when I tabled at AWA this past September. Tabling at conventions is hard, even for the seasoned con-goers and artists. Most I talked to at AWA seemed to have had a pretty bad weekend in terms of sales and monetary profits. Barring certain controversial individuals, it's hard to say that any of them are only doing it for the money. That's the first argument in favor of fanart, right? No one's getting rich off this.

And yet, it really seems like some try. It really bothers me when people go around asking, "What kind of fandoms are in at the moment? What should I fanart?" It seems like cheating if you're not even involved in the community you want to profit off of. It definitely seems like cheating if you haven't even seen the series you end up drawing from. I really think that takes away from it and tarnishes fanart's "reputation" in general. It's called fanart for a reason, y'know? If you're not really a fan, why do you bother? Some say that it's just marketing, and that part of marketing is knowing that sometimes you'll have to draw things you don't like. But this isn't a job. No one is telling you to draw what you don't like -- just in it for the money? That seems almost like stepping on the toes of the companies that choose not to persecute us for borrowing their properties. Besides, marketing? What are you marketing? What kind of impression do you leave of yourself when you ask around for the current fandoms so you can try to profit off the associated fans?

For Otakon a year or two back, an artist I know took suggestions for fanart to make prints of. Among those she ended up with was Lelouch from Code Geass. I hadn't seen the series at the time, but even then, I didn't really take to the fanart she produced of him. It didn't feel like most of her other work, which I'm a big fan of. It didn't feel like her Bleach fanart (she's a huge Bleach fanatic), and it didn't feel like her Persona 4 fanart (same). Months later, when I finally saw (and loved) Code Geass, I went back to look at the picture she'd done. It looked terrible. With my newfound knowledge of the series, the art she'd produced looked ridiculously ill-fit. There was no love. It was obvious. I was actually really shocked at how obvious it was. Of course, this isn't always the case. Some artists can pull of beautiful fanart from series they don't know anything about, but the question is, should they? For the sake the fans who would want to buy it anyway?

I suppose companies, for the most part, see fanart as free promotion. It's really no loss to them since there is no official equivilent of fanart that sales of fanart are taking away from. All it usually takes to justify the legality (or lack thereof) of selling fanart is to cite that fact, so maybe I'm being too idealistic when I get bothered by artists selling things they don't love. I mean, I guess I've been guilty of it too (a pair of Naruto prints, but hey, at least I've seen/read the series? Silly self-justification?). Besides, as a friend points out -- this sort of thing happens in every industry. Except this isn't an industry. This is a niche community. Full of fans. Presumably. Yeah, customers are usually impartial -- who cares as long as it looks good? Wouldn't you feel awkward though, if a customer tried to strike up a conversation about a series featured on your table but that you know nothing about? And you, as a customer -- wouldn't you feel let down if your favorite artist fanarted your favorite series but somehow can't remember the name of the character on the button you just bought?

Besides, even if money happens to be first on your list at a given time, it should never be the only thing on the list.

There are obviously other reasons to sell fanart at conventions though. A lot of people say "exposure." Who are you trying to expose yourself to, and what do you want to gain from their attention? I find it interesting that many of the artists I saw at AWA had no personal website and a pretty minimal Internet presence in general. Having an occasionally-updated deviantART isn't good enough. If you're willing to invest the time and money in a table at a convention, if you're really serious about your artwork and promoting yourself, in this day and age, I consider a website to be cruicial. But maybe that's skewed by my heavy technophile background (ex-computer science major, represent?). If you aren't just selling fanart for the cash, then not working hard in other areas is pretty inexcusable. Trying to make a name for yourself? It'd help if we could pick up a business card and look you up later. It'd help if you had some original stuff you're trying to promote too.

Starting with fanart has led a lot of people into the industry they've long worked towards. Japan's doujinshi scene is the obvious example. What did CLAMP start off doing? What did Maki Murakami start off doing? There are a few OEL artists that can also cite fanart as their claim to fame, like Nina Matsumoto. It's possible, but really, just getting your art out there isn't enough. You need to have original things for people to look at after you fanart gets your attention. For this year's AWA, they've implemented a 50% fanart rule intended to encourage more original art -- only 50% of your merchandise can be fanart-based. Most artists accepted this without argument and many praised the decision, and yet, a huge argument/discussion/stink started in the AWA forums anyway. Some people, apparently, have no interest in doing original art. This bewilders me.

Still, as far as the promotion thing goes. I'm not really sure what I'd be trying to promote either. I've got my (lameass) website (that's in serious need of a remodel and major update), but I am ever webcomicless. My original characters float back and forth between standalone illustrations and school assignments, not fit for sale yet. Aside from money, what do I hope to gain from tabling at MomoCon? More watchers of my work? So that when I do eventually get off my ass and do something that warrants a fanbase, I'll have more of an audience to tap from? Except that I'm not really sure that's what I want my "career" to be, so maybe it's just insurance?

A third reason to table is networking. You can meet a lot of neat people at conventions, many of them sitting behind tables. I should talk to them sometime. That's how anyone gets hired for anything these days, right? You gotta know someone who knows someone who's in a position to hire you or to influence a person who can hire you. To that end though, anime conventions are infinitely more useless than comic conventions. FUNimation's PR guy probably can't do much for you, though I wouldn't say that he'd be completely useless to know. Same with Vic Mignogna. I've been told that attending comic book conventions is pretty much part of the job if you want to work in comics. I wouldn't say the same is true for the manga or OEL scene though because there just aren't as many editors or creative staff attention conventions (that OEL branches are getting slammed left and right now it seems, but that's another post altogether).

Even if you don't intend to work in comics or manga or whatever related fandom industry, I'm sure you could meet lots of interesting and useful people at conventions. Who knows, that guy dressed as Vash could be a creative director at some small business hiring freelancers. I guess if you don't attend many other social events, an anime con is as good a place as any to meet people, and sitting behind a table full of art invites people to ask you about it, right? Maybe that's what I convince myself I'm doing this for because sometimes, I really do lose sight of it all. The money helps, but it isn't everything. I've got nothing I'm proud of enough to promote. So networking, right? That's a kind of profit too. Maybe then I'll actually have a job when I graduate. Read the rest of this entry...

Just Say "No" to a Watchmen Pre/Sequel

I swear this will be my last Watchmen-related post, ahaha...

Even before I went to see the movie on Friday, I had heard the blasphemous whispers of a sequel. Or at least, I had heard that Zack Snyder is refusing to have anything to do with one, which is certainly reassuring. Watching the movie, I couldn't help but notice Dr. Manhattan's ominous line, "Nothing ever ends." It seemed like it had less to do with his concept of time and more to do with Hollywood's tendency to milk everything for all its worth. Except that a second Watchmen movie wouldn't fly, even for non-fans. Seriously, what would you do? Just about everyone involved in the film is confused on that front. Who would want a sequel? Or even a prequel?

This article is pretty hilarious and this excerpt and quote sums up everything I have to say on the matter:

While a possible prequel about the Minutemen — the superhero team that came before the Watchmen — may make financial sense, Jeffrey Dean Morgan, who plays seasoned "Watchmen" superhero The Comedian, says it would be creative suicide.

"The fans would kill us if we tried to go and do something else," Morgan said. "If we tried to do a prequel that wasn't written by Alan Moore, we'd get crucified. We couldn't walk down the street. Unless Warner Bros. wants all of their actors to get killed, I think it's a bad idea."

And Alan Moore would never write a sequel, especially not if the entire purpose is so that a second movie could be crafted from it.

There are a lot of movies that should have never had sequels. Among them, the Matrix, Short Circuit, the Wizard of Oz (yes, that had a sequel; I know, right?), and most Disney movies. Watchmen begins and ends. They're already releasing the cut material from Tales of the Black Freighter and Under the Hood as DVD features, so there's nothing more to say or do. Really, I think chances of a second movie getting greenlit is slim to none, but it's still unsettling to know that the actors have a clause in their contract binding them to a potential sequel/prequel, which means that Hollywood, at the very least, thought about it at some point. Read the rest of this entry...

Review: Watchmen (movie)

I'm not really sure this should be considered a review. I cover the basics, I guess, but it's more like me rambling in an semi-organized manner about the movie and the book and describing which of the changes I liked and which I didn't. As such, this is your spoiler warning:

(this review contains spoilers for both the book and the movie!)

(Hey, this poster looks kinda familiar...)

Watchmen

STORY & PACING - Most of the story was intact. Indeed, people will point out that many sequences were filmed panel for panel and that there were large chunks of dialogue lifted directly from the comic. This might bother those that believe the film should be an adaptation and that it isn't an adaptation if it's taken panel for panel, but it made me happy. Mostly. Unfortunately, the exactness of some of the scenes also made it really obvious when something was changed, however slightly. Sometimes the small deviations made sense, but sometimes, they were just so trivial that I had to wonder why they didn't just stick to what had been written. It's too noticeable when you follow something almost exactly.

One scene that sticks out to me in particular is when Rorschach visited Osterman and Juspeczyk following his visit to Dreiberg near the beginning of the movie -- the conversation was a lot longer in the book and touched on the Comedian's attempted rape of Juspeczyk's mother, so Rorshach being subsequently expelled from the lab made sense. In the movie, it seemed more like Osterman getting impatient, which doesn't fit as well, and since Rorshach never gets to mention Dreiberg at all, they reworked it to Osterman suggesting Juspeczyk go see him, which doesn't make much sense either, even if they tried to use it to touch on his simultaneous time-seeing abilities. It's the little things. Also, I'm probably the only anal retentive idiot who is slightly annoyed at the fact that Rorshach's opening lines did not include the "look down" part and was therefore not word for word.

The biggest cut from the story was everything involving the newspaper vendor, the freeloading kid, and Tales of the Black Freighter, but that was pretty predictable. I've heard various things about the pirate side story being released with the DVD, and actually, in the commercials/previews before the showing, there was an ad for an animated version of Tales of the Black Freighter to be released on its own? Not sure. In any case, Bernie and Bernie still make various cameo appearances throughout the film, so it wasn't like they were axed completely.

The biggest change was obviously the ending. I would not have had a problem if they replaced the alien with a nondescripit explosion of undeteremined cause, but I was kind of puzzled as to why they decided to frame Dr. Manhattan. I mean, the guy's already left the planet with no intentions to return, so it's kind of pointless to pin it on him -- if the threat has left the planet, hell, the galaxy, why should the peace last? Maybe they don't know where he's gone, but eh... I dunno. It just seemed pointless to me. They could have just left it as an explosion and the world could freak out not knowing where it had come from. The only plus of blaming Manhattan is the explanation of how Veidt got the technology to do what he did without kidnapping random scientists, but I don't feel as if that subplot would have been hard to work into the movie (I'm actually a bit disappointed the New Frontiersman didn't play a very prominent role at all since that'd have made Rorschach's decision to send them his journal less random).

Also, I didn't like that Dreiberg witnessed Rorshach's death at the end. His scream was really weird and unnatural feeling, and his beating up on Veidt afterwards just seemed forced. I think part of the reason I didn't like it was just because I'm too used to anime pandering to the fujoshi crowd and just couldn't unsee the slash potential of Rorshach/Nite Owl II that resulted from that scene, and that is just so many kinds of do not want. =_= The "you're a good friend" scene was fine, but that final angst just pushed it over the line for me. I dunno. Dreiberg should have been off banging his girl again, not watching his buddy get blown up. That said though, Rorshach obviously had the coolest blood splatter ever.

Other random things: so, how about that sex scene, huh? Honestly, I didn't have many qualms about it other than the fact that it went on for way too long. Seriously did not need that latter half with the awkward thrusting. That was just. Yeah. But other than that? The Hallelujah Chorus and flames in the sky? Sure, whatever, man. The theatre had a great time laughing it up so it was all good. Oh, and Rorshach's backstory. I think the only reason they changed it was because they didn't want to seem like they were ripping off Saw with the limb-cutting thing when clearly it's the other way around. I don't dislike what they did, but they made it seem like Rorshach just lost it then when I feel like it was a more subtle change than that. The fire was slower-acting and put him in a position to contemplate what he'd done more than just hacking the guy's head open.

I didn't like that they made "Watchmen" the name of the second generation superhero group. Sure, it's infinitely better than "Crimebusters," as it was originally, but it takes away from the ambiguity of the title, which could be a reference to a number of things, from the Doomsday clock to a quote from Einstein. It's one of those changes that makes perfect sense but doesn't sit well all the same. Don't you hate no-win situations?

Changes aside though, I wasn't all that fond of the pacing in the movie. It seemed really choppy, especially when we were bouncing back and forth between characters. I never really got a sense that anyone was the "main" character, which is fine I guess, but that made it harder to focus. It was a lot of character and story elements strung together -- I didn't get a very good sense of time passing, which was odd as well. The whole movie could have taken place in two days, but it really should have been more like two weeks. A lot of the logic didn't follow very clearly for me either. Like, why did Dreiberg decide he wanted to spring Rorshach from prison? Not sure. Juspeczyk's whole parental subplot? Didn't feel relevant at all, and honestly, it felt kind of misplaced when it finally dawned on her.

Hum, seems like my disjointed rambling is already leading into the character section, so let's go there. D;

CHARACTER & ACTING - First off, Jackie Earle Haley as Rorshach was mindblowingly perfect. His voice, his face, everything about him was spot on. I think his face freaks me out the most because of how much it fits even though Walter Kovacs was probably supposed to be quite a bit uglier than Haley. The acting and characterization was fantastic though, and I'm really not even sure how to express how happy I am that Rorshach translated so damn well into live action. I really appreciate that Haley is also a fan of the book and worked hard to get a convincing portrayal down. The black and white nature of his character was clear. I did feel like he was a bit more emotional in the film -- there was more feeling in his voice than I'd have expected when he told Dreiberg "[he] quit" and he almost looked/sounded like he was pleading in that last scene with Manhattan. That was fine though, as the point of his character wasn't lost. Nevertheless, I do wish they could have incorporated more of his backstory and daily life -- I don't feel they were that effective in capturing his philosphies and moral views, and I did not get the impression that there was a stark difference between Rorshach and Walter Kovacs despite various scenes hinting at such. I guess I can understand the cuts to the psychologist scenes; after all, it isn't Rorshach's movie, but it was still a little disappointing.

Patrick Wilson as Dan Dreiberg was also pretty good. As far as acting goes, his awkwardness and sincerity was well done, but sometimes his interactions with the other characters felt forced. The characterization also didn't feel very solid or in-depth, but that's more a matter of script than acting. I didn't get as much a sense of his past with Rorshach, and the progression of his relationship with Juspeczyk felt rushed because the pacing of the movie in general felt rushed. I also didn't get a very clear sense of his inner conflict with superheros and vigilantism, partially because I don't think anything involving the Keene Act was well explained. The flashbacks and such dealing with the police strike felt jumbled and focused more on the Comedian as a character than the moral questions surrounding the subject. So in the end, I guess this made Dan a pretty flat character, which really is a shame because the acting wasn't bad.

Speaking of the Comedian, I didn't like the opening of the movie. I didn't like that we caught that glimpse of him while he was still alive when he's otherwise portrayed entirely through flashbacks. Honestly, I think that opening bit was more of a bone tossed at the fanboys than anything substiantial storywise -- it was a good place to sneak in references to Nostalgia and other things that I can't seem to remember right now, but we had that later montage where there were references up the wazoo anyway, so it's even more pointless that way. Rather than spend those ten minutes watching the Comedian die, I would have preferred they be invested in better developing one of the other characters. Eddie Blake wasn't badly characterized though. Every bit of him we saw in the film was pretty much taken straight from the comics, so it felt pretty solid. I think his scene with the pregnant woman in Vietnam would have been better if it had stuck more precisely with the book, but that might just be another on the long list of things that stood out because they were done almost exactly.

Malin Akerman was an okay Laurie Juspeczyk. I have to say that I never really liked the character to begin with though, even in the comic, and it seemed like all of her imperfections were more obvious in the movie. As I said before, her entire subplot with her parents seemed frustratingly irrelevant, though this could partially be blamed on Jon Osterman's poor film characterization. Her conflict with her mother and the fact that she had been raised into vigilantism was not very clear (her mother's acting and characterzation was great, however). Her relationship with Osterman seemed contrived at best, and the time (or lack thereof) it took for her to come onto Dreiberg just makes her seem like a slut. I'm just a huge misogynist though... I guess it doesn't help that the only important thing she seems to do in the entire movie is motivate Dreiberg to put on his costume again (and sleep with him).

Billy Crudup really looked the part for Dr. Manhattan, but his character was exceedingly difficult to grasp in the movie. I think part of this is because the format of his lengthy flashbacks on Mars just wasn't as effective as it was in the comic. The lack of narration made it harder to understand that he perceives all time simultaneously, so you couldn't really understand that he had been growing more and more distant from humanity because of that ability. The impact of his relationship with Janey Slater didn't resonate very well; as a result, his relationship with Juspeczyk didn't hold too great either. Thus, Osterman just comes off as a cold and distant character -- since his feelings for Juspeczyk felt contrived, his "sudden" appreciation of humanity near the end of the movie didn't really connect. Actually, this bothered me in the book too. He "saves" the world by deciding not to do anything about Veidt's plan, kills Rorshach to ensure that no one else does, but then he jumps ship and leaves the galaxy? Just because Juspeczyk leaves him? Humanity has to mean more to you than just one relationship, right?

And finally... Matthew Goode as Adrian Veidt. Am I the only one who thought that he had neon flashing lights over his head proclaiming "LOOK AT ME~! I'M THE VILLAIN~!" from the minute he was introduced? Just everything about him seemed to scream stereotypical supervillain, from the slight accent to the arrogant demeanor. I consider Watchmen's storyline to be a mystery at its core -- this doesn't work if the "bad guy" is obvious from the second he walks in. I was completely fooled by Veidt in the comic, so what the hell happened?? This is my single biggest gripe with the entire movie. Veidt came off as a much more playful, and even naive, character in the book (his sad little "My display..." comment after the Comedian burns his chart thing in that flashback sticks out in my head); his obsession with Alexander the Great and Egyptian myth wasn't obvious at all and was not explained until the very end. The worst of it was that they chose to have him ramble about his idols and motivation right before the attempt on his life. They alienate his character and pretty much confirm him as a villain right before the attempt to remove him as a suspect. Yeah, that totally works. -_-

All of the minor characters in the movie were pretty great though. Rorshach's shrink, Hollis Mason, Sally Jupiter, Moloch (even though I think the pointed ears could have been left out) were all spot on. I really do think they did a brilliant casting job -- most of what's missing in characterization is due more to cuts in the script than anything else. I always feel like they could have invested more in developing all the characters properly rather than spending the time on decidedly less important things such as the intro with the Comedian and the sex scene, but I also know that to the general population, especially those who have not read the comic, shiny things are better than deep things. So what can ya do.

One thing though, my roommate and I both swear we saw Patrick Stewart as one of the generals in the war room with President Nixon (sitting on the far-left in many of the shots). His name wasn't in the credits, not does it seem to be mentioned anywhere else, but we SWEAR it was him. Anyone else spot him or are we just crazy?

ART & ANIMATION - Rorshach's face was amazing. Dr. Manhattan also looked pretty good, and I appreciated that they didn't try to censor his occasional full blown nudity. The doc exploding people was also nice looking. Other than that though... a lot of the movie looked too shiny to me for some reason. It felt too modern. I had a hard time remembering that it's 1985. I think that's more due to the format of the film than anything else though -- the shiny things on Mars didn't help either. There were a lot of hints towards the era; I just had a hard time picking them up because 1) my historical sense is terrible, and 2) everything was still so shiny! Is it unfair of me to say that things were just too well-animated? The Comedian being thrown out the window in slow motion was just too sophisticated. I wanted nitty gritty. It's a dirty, oldschool crimescene; I didn't want the fancy schmancy effects.

The explosion at the end was also a little disappointing. It felt too overdramatic and staged, which is weird because it should have been dramatic, just not staged. Maybe they'd overspent their budget on Dr. Manhattan by that point. I didn't get a very good sense of just how much devastation there was either -- there was no shot of the mountain of dead bodies tumbling out of the Garden afterwards. Even the newscasts didn't seem to emphasize that millions of people died. It felt weird, but it's still a good-looking movie, maybe just too good.

Oh, wait. I forgot to talk about Bubastis. Bubastis looked cheap. Didn't blend with the scenery at all, and just wasn't very convincing in general. Really, I wish they had just left her out altogether because without the genetic experimentation angle on Veidt's plot, she just seemed like a misplaced character. All she did was make Veidt seem even more like a stereotypical supervillain. All the bad guys seem to like to have their little kitty pet. (It's always a cat. Why always a cat?) The fact that Veidt was lacking in all his rambling monologue didn't help either because the audience didn't get a chance to appreciate Bubastis before her death. It's very sad.

MUSIC - My first thought was that there was way too much in the way of vocal background music in this movie. My roommate pointed out that a lot of it helped put us in the time period -- pieces like Nena's "99luftballoons" and Simon and Garfunkel's "The Sound of Silence" (okay, maybe that one's a bit old). I guess that's true, though I suck at pop culture and can't place these things very well anyway. "Hallelujah" was just exceptionally corny, which is okay, except that they went for corny twice. They'd already used "Rise of the Valkyries." I did like most of the music choices; it just seemed excessive after a while. The soundtrack itself was pretty neat, though I'd probably need to watch the movie again to get a better opinion.

OVERALL - Hell, I want to see the entire movie again to get a better opinion in general. I already can't remember a lot of specific scenes, and that really bugs me. I think this "review" sounds a lot more negative than I want it to -- it's always easier to talk about the poorer aspects of something because praising the good parts just feels like finding all the synonyms of "awesome" that exist and spewing them together onto the page. I liked this movie. There are some things about it that I would change if it were up to me, but really? It was a solid enough film; it was fun and entertaining. Some of the changes/additions were pretty neat too (I loved Rorshach's "It's your turn, doc: what do you see?"). It's true that some of the deeper questions that spawned from the book are missing, but the general idea is still there. It still poses the same moral question at the end.

I would probably recommend it to fans of the book as long as they're willing to accept that changes will always exist. I'm not really sure what to say to non-fans though. I've yet to hear many opinions from people who've never read the comic. I did say that I felt the pacing was a bit confusing, so maybe the non-fan would be too confused to grasp the core themes. In that sense, it's a shame, and maybe the movie didn't really succeed, but for the fan, it's still a nice treat to be able to see everything in live action. Read the rest of this entry...

Review: Watchmen (comic)

This was something that has been on my to-read list for years. One of my professors assigned it as required reading last quarter, but we never ended up discussing it, so I never got around to finishing it. I was determined to finish it before the movie's release though and thus finally sat down and marathoned through it in five hours on Tuesday. Now I can finally look forward to the movie tomorrow (not seeing it at midnight). I hear there have been a lot of mixed reviews going around, but I don't really want to read any of them until I've seen it. I'm not really worried, honestly. The trailers look great, though I'm kind of on the fence about the special effects. Despite that, I don't think I'm expecting a whole lot from it, so hopefully my purist neuroticism won't strike too badly.

We'll see. I will definitely be writing a review of the movie as well, so yeah. In the meantime~.

(this review contains no spoilers!)

Watchmen

STORY - Watchmen presents a very good question: superheroes only fight the symptoms of a greater disease that affects all of mankind, so who is there to cure the actual disease? Is it even possible to cure? In a slight alternate universe, the disease has brought us to the brink of a third world war, and as the saying goes, if WW3 is fought with nuclear weapons, then WW4 will be fought with rocks, if at all. There are other themes, though, including the idea of superheros in the real world, and power. Blasphemous as it may be, I've read very little of Alan Moore's other work, but I've pretty much fallen in love with his style. The prose is very sophisticated and the dialogue is top notch and natural. New York is recognizable, and this could well be our real world. The story is presented on many different levels and all are interconnected, whether directly, tangentially, or metaphorically. I think a lot of comics have literary merit, but Watchmen is a classic example all the same.

Many aspects of the story openly mock the trends and stereotypes within superhero comics, but even in a world where superheroes exist, Watchmen makes direct references back to real comics in our past, such as Action Comics #1, where the Man of Steel was born. It's these little things that make the illusion all the more convincing and engrossing, and that illusion is perpetuated by the material in between chapters: excerpts from documents within this universe, including memoirs, reviews, letters, essays, newspaper clippings, notes, and photographs. It reminded me a lot of Stephen King's Carrie (the novel, not the movie) though I'm sure that King wasn't the first to use this brilliant storytelling tactic either. All the details, all the thought, and all the angles: everything fit together so neatly, and I appreciated that Moore made everything so utterly convincing that the first time I encountered some of these excerpts, I had to wonder if he actually took them from some source material in our real world.

At its core, Watchmen is really just a murder mystery. The multiple levels at which you can read it allow for tons of little details that hint towards the final revelations. I love stuff like that. You can read it again and again and still go "ahha!" at the things you never noticed before; you can continue to draw connections and parallels between all the different characters and events. You don't just "get it" once. You get it again and again and that feeling is great. And really, the depth of the political and philosophical commentary is just extra. A very enjoyable extra, yes, but extra all the same. And the ending? I have pretty mixed feelings about it, but regardless of that, I wouldn't say it's a bad ending. It just makes me wonder what Alan Moore really thinks and feels about the subject.

CHARACTER - No matter how you look at it, Rorschach is pretty much a badass. Whether or not you actually agree with his principles and philosophies, he is a badass. It's hard not to admire someone who is so true to himself and what he believes in. It's also easy for me to appreciate homage characters, and Rorschach is pretty much Steve Ditko (and/or his characters Mr. A and The Question), who has been described to me by a professor as being of a similar personality and philosophy. Annnd... I've pretty much always like superhero characters that consider their masked identity their "true" identitiy while their human personality is only a facade. It's why I like Batman so much. And it's one of the many reasons Watchmen gives for why people decide to become masked vigilantes -- they're insane.

Despite wild pseudoscience as far as physics and technology go, the realism in Watchmen is persistent, and one of the clearest examples is its cast of characters. With the exception of Dr. Manhattan, none of the heroes in Watchmen have actual powers beyond their personal resolve and technical ability. Motivation for a career in crimefighting is varied and ranges from pureness of character to fetishism, idealistic romanticism, and moral objectivism. The essays and articles that accompany the comic really emphasize this, and it's easy to conclude that most of the superheros are at least a little mentally unbalanced -- still, most are not such overt cases that it feels contrived.

Rorschach does not change much as Watchmen progresses, but more and more insight on his character is gradually revealed. He himself recounts his past to the audience and the distance he places between the person he is in the present and the person he was in the past is profound. I don't want to exhaustively go through the rest of the cast, but suffice to say that they are all very human. Jon Osterman, Laurie Juspeczyk, and Dan Dreiberg are all exceptionally well-rounded characters, the latter two especially. I had a harder time following Jon's logic, but given the nature of his character, that might just be an ironic coincidence. Adrian Veidt also felt a little further out there, but I guess not everyone's perfect (those feel like pretty ironic words too). But hell, even the Comedian was a good, multi-faceted character and he's already dead on page one.

The supporting cast is also brilliant. The city is populated with many personalities and their lives serve to parallel many themes in the story. Though the sniplets we get of them are small and seemingly insignificant, the way they're all intertwined and interconnected in the end makes certain events hit harder. It's always the little things that make the bigger picture seem crazier and more amazing. The newspaper vendor whose name you don't even get until halfway through, the boy reading comics by the electric car pump -- these characters are just as real as anyone else in the story, perhaps even moreso because their lives are so ordinary -- it's these characters that complete the illusion that's contained within the pages you're reading.

ART - I'm really not that familiar with Dave Gibbons's work, but I definitely enjoyed his art in Watchmen. At first glance, it's pretty generic superhero stuff, but the feel of that style really suits the series, so it's no big setback. Besides, Gibbons's characters are chiseled, consistent, and very expressive. Like many American comic artists, his angles and environments are masterful, and his spot blacks are fantastic. I've been shown some of his Watchmen pages as plain inks with no color, and honestly, I feel like they would have worked perfectly fine just like that. The nine-grid layout system that's used throughout the comic allows for very precise control of time and pacing. The story moves along very steadily for the most part, but it's very easy to tell when a scene is being sped up or slowed down. Occasionally, there will be an oversized panel for emphasis, and since the rest of the structure is so clean, that emphasis is tenfold.

Gibbons also did the letterwork for the comic. I'm usually not drawn to lettering because few people take the time to make it interesting, but I really enjoyed how it was done here. Rorschach and Dr. Manhattan's dialogue bubbles are very distinct, and it fits great because I imagine both to have very unique voices -- the former because he's speaking through fabric and just has a very quirky speech pattern in general, and the latter because... he's a freak? There are also different caption types between Rorschach's journal and the narrative of the pirate story within a story. Once again, it's the little things that make everything so clear and tightly packaged. I approve.

John Higgins's colorjob put me off at first, especially when I have Gibbons's beautiful inks to consider, but it's definitely something I got used to. While simple, the colors definitely help to set the moods of certain scenes and environments, as well as provide additional clarity when moving between narratives and locations. It's also worth noting that printers and colors were more limited when Watchmen first debuted. After a few chapters, the simplicity and the clashing of some of the palettes stopped bothering me altogether. Honestly, I would hate to ever see a "remastered" version with a more modern coloring style -- in conjunction with the nostalgic, nine-panel layouts, it just wouldn't fit.

OVERALL - You know, I kind of don't think the tagline "Who watches the watchmen?" fits as well as it should. I don't feel as if that question represents the most important theme of the story. I think the words in Rorschach's journal on the first page are a better representation. Watchmen is a very well written piece of literature. The artwork and visual storytelling is good, but the story and the writing is undoubtedly its greatest merit. I think it's a great introduction work for people who don't read comics in general, but especially for manga fans who don't read Western works because they perceive the superhero-dominated mainstream to be generic and shallow. There's a very good reason it's so widely revered. I was not disappointed.

The accumulated filth of all their sex and murder will foam up about their waists, and all the whores and politicians will look up and shout, "Save us!" ...And I'll look down and whisper, "No." Read the rest of this entry...