Do you have your time mapped out?

I do.

 It’s not about features. What is? It’s about cool. The iPad has a nice big screen, crisp clean colours, it’s thin and light and it’s expensive. Apple’s ‘unbelievable price’ tagline made BHG smile, although perhaps not for the reason intended.

 BHG watched a fellow commuter drag one of these out of a bag, poor guy flipped through a couple of emails, scanned the newspaper and then settled in to a game of golf. BHG did the same, on his iPod Touch, all the while eyes sliding to the gorgeous display of the iPad. It really does look amazing.

 It’s ‘fun’ device though. This isn’t a laptop. You won’t be enhancing your productivity by owning one of these. Instead it’s a great way to consume. You can play games, watch movies and listen to music and that’s all about screen size. What you shouldn’t expect to do is contribute using one of these devices.

 BHG thinks that a lot of the criticism levelled at the iPad probably comes from this root misunderstanding. You work at a computer, you blog from your laptop, you consume through your iPad. It’s quite clever really, there’s a clear reason for a person to own a full quite of Apple devices. You can see the automotive industry struggling to do something similar but it’s a tactic suited to consumer technology. Everyone has been flogging the obsolescence horse for a clear two decades combining obsolescence with multiple single focus multi purpose devices is just the next step in cute marketing.

 Apple, we who are about to buy, salute you.

Here’s the BBC coverage:

While I don’t generally watch television (do you watch it as often as you used to?) I must admit being quite keen on Heroes. We’re well passed the opening series and in some ways it’s an established show but there is much that feels experimental about it too, and not the sort of toeing-the-line experiemental that a producer might be hoping for but more of the sort of learning what everyone else knows experimental stuff. In short, despite my hopes for the show, I often find myself disappointed with the plot, the characters and the overall feel of the programme.

I suppose I should first explain my hopes. Production technology has certainly reached the stage where Heroes and other similar shows can incorporate regularly and efficently effects which were once the reserve of medium to large budget feature films. The everyday use of supernatural powers being a staple of the Heroes diet makes it an excellent programme to produce today in an environment where the impossible can be made to appear reasonably plausible to a tight schedule. Think about the classic six million dollar man and some of the things they had to resort to to convey speed and power and then think about some of the effect deployed in Heroes.

All of these possibilities led me to believe, perhaps erroneously, that the effects would take a back seat and the drama and plot would shine through, even against such a ridiculous premise. Certainly for much of the properly maligned series two, this wasn’t the case.

The plot arcs are just too complex to be enjoyable. Contrast the goings on in Heroes with the Simpsons. Perhaps two extremes of the plot salad bar. At one end you have a show where every episode is entirely self contained. At the end of your thirty minutes all of the characters are returned to their original status and made ready for essentially any other episode to follow. The weather is the same, the characters don’t age or improve their circumstances. It’s the perfect sandbox for writers who can explore an idea and its permutations at their leisure in a controlled environment. Many of the most popular television series use a similar model. Think about Star Trek, they just kept on boldy going and did so until not enough people wanted to boldy go with them.

At the other end of our illustratory salad bar you have shows like 24, Prison Break and Heroes. While each episode is largely self-sufficient, and those that aren’t form explicitly linked pairs or triplets of story, there is a progressive story arc. Each episode develops the overall story and the characters who feature in an episode are changed by that episode to a lesser or greater extent. For example, if Homer gets shot he will heal completely in time for the next show, if you shot a character in Heroes then they’ll carry a scar for the rest of the season. Let me be straight, I think that’s a mistake!

There are several reasons for my opinion. First, continuity in a fictional universe is hard going. There are whole communities out there dedicated to identifying and publishing continuity errors and illogical decisions. Think about the head in the box in Prison Break… That wasn’t so much an error as a massive inconvenience when audience surveys revealed that practically everyone wanted that character back! You could also think about 24 where working within the constraints of the show just isn’t feasible all of the time. What sort of president calls eight cabinet meetings in one 24 hour period?

A second reason is that the lack of a sandbox environment really makes it hard on the writers. If you have one writer, like Babylon 5 did then the multi-season story arc works really well. After all, one person has the whole thing mapped out from start to finish and that makes keeping things coherent much more straightforward. At least they should do. If the writers or Heroes know where the story is going then they really aren’t doing the best job of showing it. Think about Voyager, a solid example of how to progress without ever making any progress, while the episodes are sometimes bizarre all of the characters have a clearly defined purpose and role which best of all is achievable and yet entirely beyond their grasp. The ship is so far away from home that progress as much as they want, home stays firmly out of reach. In short, Voyager managed to make ongoing progress part of the sandbox model and is a successful example of a multi-series story arc which delivered progress and development in a very stable plot environment.

Finally the characters. While I appreciate a bit of character development I think that it’s a bit too epic for a TV show. The regrettably late Robert Jordan’s The Wheel of Time consumed eleven large books to convey Rand’s development as a person. Even then you could argue convincingly that the series constitutes an investigation into his character, through his associations and experiences over an extended period rather than his personal development. The characters in Heroes are so changing and dynamic that it is hard to associate with them, to identify with them. When you do, they change on a whim and you are left longing for the consistency of Bart or the recalcitrance of House’s dislike for the world.

Despite all of this you can bet your bottom dollar I’ll be watching the next episode. After all, they might get it right this time.

Word of the Day: Abacist
- adjective

1 – A person using an abacus

Casey Johnson, herself thirty when she died, lay for what appears to be at least three days, unmissed. I’m not sure this says a great deal in favour of her fiance, a person I shall avoid naming or referring to ever again. Casey Johnson didn’t answer her phone and she stopped twittering. But no one called by. No one else was inside her home for one reason or another until an unfortunate maid dicovered her body in a bedroom. On a side note here, two members of my family have been or are police officers. Both of them have discovered bodies in varying degrees of death. Both report that it is a deeply unpleasant experience. Both insist that death, once properly encountered, is not forgotten. Because of them I appreciate my naieveté. In short, I feel for that maid. I presume of course that she is not in the habit, so to speak.

Many, some themselves socialites or famous, have expressed their electronic condolences to Miss Johnson and her family. I have something of an issue with electronic condolences. You see, electronic sentiments mean very little, save those which are hand delivered. Hand delivery is also meaningless (we call it the post, unless the hand is itself known. Empathy for loss doesn’t come cheap. You certainly can’t register for it. I’m not sure empathy works en masse either. Quite unlike advertising, which works best en masse. I’ll let you decide which this is. To be crystal clear about this, I don’t think these individuals are expressing faith in life after death when they tell a person they are missed, I think they are taking advanage of an aquaintance even when they are dead.

Told you it was morbid. Reading the article led me to the obvious question. My answer? If it happened right now, then I would guess a couple of hours. My wife likes to check on me when I stay up to use the computer, it’s a practice of hers I encourage. I suppose there are times when I might go unnoticed for a while. The more I think about it, I think that considering it carefully would encourage anyone to be a better person. I don’t mean idealogically, I mean selfishly. The ultimate selfishness in this sense would be to serve others wholeheartedly and without reservation, then you would be missed. Think about it.

How long would it be?

Word of the day: Denouement
-noun
1 – the final resolution of the intricacies of a plot, as of a drama or novel.
2 – the place in the plot at which this occurs.
3 – the outcome or resolution of a doubtful series of occurrences.

Avatar Movie Poster

Wow.

Ok, first, the gripe. 3d glasses make your eyes swim. After about fifteen minutes I felt pretty uncomfortable wearing them. It’s a testament to the movie that I stuck with it for another 168 minutes! I should also admit at this stage that the 3D is very immersive and doesn’t detract from the core functions of the movie. It’s just there, rather like it usually is.

Back to the flick itself. Wow. The plot is really simple. You know roughly what’s going to happen from the very start. I suppose Avatar is broadly allegorical and references on multiple occassions the caucasian exploitation of indigenous peoples through the last few centuries. The most powerful allusions here are with the European and then American exploitation of North American natural resources at the expense of the native american indians. The (evil?) corporation in Avatar is digging for a funky metal whose value is never clearly explained. It’s not important. The simplicity of the plot is the secret to Avatar’s greatness. This is a flight of fancy. You sit back, relax and let someone tell you a great story with a few major characters and a lot of amazing imagery and cultural experiences. Predictable it is, boring it is not.

Let me say a word here about colour. Avatar is beautiful. The near universal use of phosphorescence in the jungle and forest landscapes is awe inspiring. You want to go there yourself. The humans in Avatar make extensive use of choppers and some of the in flight scenes set up some fantastic vistas which support the sense of scale and grandeur throughout. The detailing is tremendous. Even when you are staring at something as utterly ridiculous as say, millions of tonnes of floating rocks held down by tree roots, you can’t help but believe what you are seeing. Something about it just seems right. The closest I can think of is the image of a mountain in the waters of a still loch. You know it’s a reflection but still think you would enjoy climbing those slopes.

Avatar makes extremely extensive use of generated imagery and it works well enough that you forget about it most of the time. There are some slightly cartoony elements which weaken the realism but overall it’s very immersive. This impressed me as very few movies pull this off anywhere near as well.

I knew I was in for a treat when Avatar opens with a man flying for six years away from the Earth to start a new life. His brother is dead and he is shipping out to replace him. The subliminal message is clear. Let go. Let your presumptions and attitudes die, if only for three hours, and leave hold of your sense of what is real and come away with us. Come away to a world populated by ten foot tall betailed humanoids. If you are interested in my advice. Do it. Let go of your life for three hours and just enjoy. After all, as the man says, the pay is good, really good. Any movie smart enough to pitch itself as a form of entertainment which will take you away from the limitations of your real life and let you explore a fantasy is bound to be good in my book!

Finally the trademark moment. When my father and I came away from the cinema we had a life conversation. You know the ones, where you talk about big serious topics in a very general manner. To me, that’s the confirmation that shows that a movie has ticked the two most important boxes in the home (and cinema) entertainment field. 1 – It’s total escapism, 2 – When it’s done it leads you to think seriously about your life in a constructive manner. Now, I am not assuring you that you will come away life affirmed. I am sure some people will pick holes. But if you are looking for an enjoyable jaunt several light years away, take the trip to Pandora. You won’t regret it. It’s nothing like the box.

Now, where’s that book on Custer?

Of course, given a few months, the cracker community will have a work around. Where there’s a will there’s a way. But I see this as an affirmation from the big M that COD:MW2 is in fact a great game. I may need to review my opinion. Now all I need to do is convince my wife that playing Modern Warfare 2 will in fact improve our relationship.

How am I going to pull that off?

When you play the games you keep plenty of mental notes for later. You revel in exploring maps, not for upgrades and bonuses, but to divine the amount of effort that has gone into putting them together in the first place. I once caught myself counting how many different tree models had been used to generate a forest. After all, anything less than five is lazy right?

None of this will make it’s way to print. You just don’t have the space to talk about everything, instead you have to focus on how all of these observations made you feel about the game. You then communicate this as effectively as possible, usually while discussing the basic structure of the game and a small number of it’s central pros and cons. Half an hour later you have a review.

Which brings me neatly to my topic today. Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2. Ignoring the content of the articles, which seems to be overwhelmingly good, the tone just down straight worries me. You see computer games take you to another place. They give you access to special powers and abilities. Evening saving your progress is a non-real experience. After all, when did you last “save” during that dificult chat with your boss so that you could go away and read some tips online? Exactly.

What this really means is that any good game will leave you feeling something. I’m not sure what term fits here. ‘Exalted’ is way too much, ‘special’ has the wrong connotations and uplifted is heading in the wrong direction. Let’s call it the ‘buzz’, that’s snazzy and original right? Remember when you came out of Star Trek? You felt it then. Why, because not matter how you look at it, it was a good movie. It took you into outer space and showed you some cool stuff happening to some pretty cool characters. It’s the fact that it is so far from our experience of reality that gives you the buzz.

People that walked away from Watchmen didn’t have that feeling. I’m not one of them, but those who have described it to me never conveyed the impression that it had affected them. I don’t know about you but I want to walk away from entertainment entertained. I want to feel that something, that lift. The buzz.

All of the reviews I have read so far, despite their positive words, have conveyed a feeling of disappointment. That would be the antithesis of buzz. It’s not good. I suspect that despite the hype this game will swiftly join that ranks of the OK. Sure those are only words, but my money is where my mouth is and this fan isn’t going to be purchasing COD:MW2 anytime soon.