No, Virginia

John Carter is not a movie adaptation of A Princess of Mars, and that’s my biggest problem with it.

Johncartertharks
John Carter is a much, much better movie than last year’s Green Lantern, but watching it, I felt the same frustration: why take a perfectly compelling, time-tested pulp story and then choose to tell it in the most convoluted way possible?

A former Confederate soldier, now prospecting in the west and on the run from Apaches, stumbles into a cave. He’s mysteriously transported to Mars, where he’s captured by a tribe of Martians and kept as a pet. He earns the respect of the Martians, rescues and falls in love with a beautiful princess, and then leads his former captors in battle to save the princess’s people. After his victory, he’s unwillingly transported back to Earth and forced to find a way back.

That’s gold. It’s what’s kept a story relevant enough to want to film it almost one hundred years later. It’s what inspired a direct rip-off character that has itself become a classic. I’d pay to see that story. In fact, I did pay to see that story.

What I got, though, was: an airship battle between warring city-states, interrupted by a trio of weird god-like men with a magic weapon. Then a tedious and unnecessary narration. Then a spy chase through the streets of 19th century Manhattan. Then a needlessly drawn-out version of Edgar Rice Burrough’s original framing story. Followed by an extended sequence that over-complicates the set-up of Carter’s trip to Mars, which I’m guessing was intended to introduce Carter as some type of post-Civil-War bad-ass.

When we finally get to Mars, the rest of the movie is an attempt to combine A Princess of Mars with its sequel, The Gods of Mars. That means introducing the Tharks, infighting and family intrigue among the Tharks, a friendly dog, an ongoing war between Zodanga and Helium (the spray-tan humanoid species of Mars, distinguished only by red or blue flags), the Therns, the goddess Issus and the river Is, blue light, white apes, arena battles, airships, a wedding, and a final bit of subterfuge at Carter’s tomb.

And since that wasn’t quite enough, they added a bit of backstory in the form of Cowboys and Aliens-style flashbacks to Carter’s wife and daughter.

I’ve read reviews that called it “confusing” and “incoherent.” It’s not really confusing, since the story’s easy enough to follow once it settles down into a linear narrative. It’s just that so much of it is unnecessary. It tries to tell too much story, which results in none of the story having enough time to make a significant impact.

In A Princess of Mars, the lack of explanation for how Carter traveled from Earth to Mars made it intriguing, and it made his relationship with the princess Dejah Thoris and his new homeworld of Barsoom more poignant. Using characters from the sequel to try and explain it just takes all the mystery out of it, turning it into a typical hero vs. villain story.

In the original, there’s a real sense of discovery as Carter adjusts to life on Mars and his new “powers” there. Carter proves himself a hero for learning the ways of his captors, not just for being able to jump really high on account of the reduced gravity. He learns their language. The green Martians Tars Tarkas and Sola become genuine characters with interesting relationships. The movie, though, just skims over all the development of the green Martians, jumping from one moment to the next as if to get back to the Gods of Mars as quickly as possible. Because, I guess, a bunch of bald white guys in silver suits are more interesting than 15-foot-tall, six-limbed green aliens? Later, though, the movie presents what are supposed to be dramatic moments of resolution with the green Martians, but they all feel hollow since none of them were earned.

Also most of Rome is in the cast, for some reason. I suppose casting Caesar and Mark Antony made practical sense, since we already knew they looked good in Roman military uniforms. (I’m guessing that Posca came along as a cast-two-get-one-free deal). All it did for me was remind me how well Rome was able to compress so much history into a miniseries and still have the dramatic moments feel meaningful.

I’m not sure why filmmakers would take a pulp story or comic as their source material and then attempt to change up the narrative. Embellish it, streamline it, or make it more contemporary, sure. But these stories are long-lasting because they work as narratives, not just as concepts or jumping-off points.

And incidentally: I’d like to plead with filmmakers to stop using narration already! If you have to have someone narrating the setting and premise of your story, then that’s a sure sign you’re just not telling the story well. It always does more harm than good — even if you don’t trust your audience to follow what’s going on, how can you possibly expect 60 seconds of a guy talking about Barsoom, Zodanga, and Helium is going to help?

I hate being dismissive of John Carter. It doesn’t deserve the beating it’s getting from critics, many of whom are going in biased against a pulp story. And it definitely has its moments. The arena scene is impressive, as is Carter’s battle against an army of green Martians. Every scene with the dog is fantastic. There’s genuine humor throughout. The costume and set design are extremely well done. The creature CG is believable, even though none of Carter’s jumping shots work. The airships are impressive, and there are moments of genuine excitement in a couple of the battles as Carter leaps from one ship to the next. And the finale is a satisfying reversal that improves on the original.

In fact, there are enough scenes in John Carter to make a couple of really good movies. The problem comes from trying to mash them all together into one. I’m guessing that they wanted to beef up the story with enough action and battle scenes to launch the franchise with a bang. The problem is that by trying to mash together Princess of Mars and Gods of Mars into one movie, instead of letting them play out as sequels, they’ve all but guaranteed that a sequel won’t get traction.

Aside

In case anybody’s had a comment and not had it show up: try posting it again. The site’s been overwhelmed with spam so it’s entirely possible I’ve been deleting good comments along with the bad.

We’ve got a gusher!

I’m irrationally excited about the new SimCity game.

Simcityunits
Under normal circumstances, just the announcement of an XCOM game by Firaxis would be proof enough that we’re living in a Golden Age. But I’m even more looking forward to the new SimCity.

I won’t even try to pretend that I’m taking a wait-and-see approach with this game. You can slap “SimCity” on just about anything and it’s an instant buy for me. But what elevates this one from inevitable begrudging purchase to genuine anticipation is the news from GDC about the underlying simulation engine:

Working on SimCity 4 didn’t give me any insider knowledge of the new game, but it has made me more excited. Because I can say at the risk of coming across as gushing that Ocean Quigley, Andrew Willmott, and Lucy Bradshaw are three of the smartest people I’ve ever met. I’ve got every confidence that they get why SimCity works and what makes it appealing. And a lot of the ideas going into the new version are ones that came up as “wouldn’t it be great if we could…?” ideas while making the last game. One example: ploppable buildings that have influence on their surrounding neighborhoods beyond the usual fire protection/crime layer.

During the development of SimCity 4, Andrew made a scriptable effects engine for particle effects like fires, fireworks, flocks of birds, and so on. As I understand, it was originally intended to be a straightforward, lightweight particle system. Then Ocean got a hold of it, and he worked with Andrew to expand its functionality with events, triggers, probabilities, and so on. By the end, it was able to do all kinds of amazing things — all of the aircraft and watercraft, and their trails and wakes, were done with the effects system instead of the automata system — without turning into an impossibly complex system and without taking too much computational time. The thought of that philosophy driving the entire simulation sounds fantastic.

(Incidentally I’d be more than happy to travel to Emeryville and provide crucial playtesting and feedback. Call or email me. Soon).

SimCity 3000 is the first game that I literally spent an entire day playing. I’ve gotten obsessive over games since, but no other game series has become as much of a compulsion for me as SimCity. Any time I get a window seat on a plane, or whenever I drive through an industrial part of a city, I get this need to play SimCity again. The most telling part of all the info so far is Andrew’s comment that they’re going for the fun and accessibility of SimCity 2000 combined with the complexity of the later versions. It’s going to be a long wait until 2013.

Like I’m going to read in direct sunlight with a $600 tablet. COME ON!

Yet another attempt to figure out the mindset of people blinded by glowing Apple logos.


Not even 24 hours after Apple’s new iPad announcement, John Gruber at Daring Fireball resumed his vicious assault on female tech bloggers by quoting “Apple’s Press Conference Showed a Brand Unraveling” by Jolie O’Dell at VentureBeat.

It’s an op/ed that says there were no major problems with the presentation, just “a few minor but glaring inconsistencies” that were worth spending several paragraphs describing in context and explaining how they foretell the imminent downfall of Apple Inc. as we know it. For want of a tucked-in shirt, the $540 share price was lost.

The article’s actually not much worse than the bulk of the tech punditry circling the product announcement. Sure, it does try to make the case that Apple is falling apart after Jobs’s death, and it does so by making spurious comparisons between products released now and products released when Jobs was already no longer CEO of the company. I suppose it’s less compelling to acknowledge that it’s been a couple years now since Jobs was in charge of day-to-day operations, or to point out that Apple hasn’t actually released an industry-changing product every year since Jobs took over.

And it’s easier to write:

Last time Apple was without Jobs, it came out with a lineup of duds.

as long as you conveniently forget about the Apple Hi Fi.

But I guess it’s inevitable for a charismatic leader of a company to get praised for all his successes while the not-quite-successes get conveniently ignored. I just hope that it doesn’t reach Disney fan intensity, where 55 years from now we’re still having to hear “What would Steve think?” And I hope that people, even people surrounded by tech “news” all day, still have enough of a handle on reality to recognize how silly the complaints are.

O’Dell complains about the word “resolutionary” as something Jobs’s perfectionism would never have allowed. I think it’s goofy, but no goofier than anything else Apple marketing has done in the past 15 years. Maybe it’s just a case of their thinking differently.

One thing O’Dell doesn’t complain about, although it seems just about everyone else has, is that the announcement was just a “modest” or “unremarkable” update. As if it’s no big deal that they were able to quadruple the resolution of the iPad screen. Except the entire device is a screen. People have apparently forgotten back to a few weeks ago, when the speculation was that a “retina” display on the iPad would be kept to a much more expensive “HD” model. I’ve got to wonder whether releasing the new model without a significant price bump somehow undermined what an achievement it is to get that kind of pixel density on a mobile screen.

I’ll admit I was getting a little excited about the rumors of haptic feedback, even though they were based on pretty implausible speculation (all that just from the words “and touch” on an invitation for a touch screen device?) But that’ll probably come in the 7th or 8th revision of the iPad.

Which will apparently still be called the “iPad.” And we’re all supposed to be upset about that, for some reason. I’m not just singling out O’Dell here, either; this is something several people are actually complaining about.

O’Dell says that calling the new version “new iPad” is an inconsistency in branding that wouldn’t have been allowed under Jobs’s reign, even though it’s the weird iPhone naming pattern that’s inconsistent throughout the line of Apple products. Did you remember that the iPhone 3G is actually the second version of the phone? Followed by the iPhone 3GS? And the iPhone 4, which was actually the fourth iteration of the phone and not to be confused with “4G” cellular networks? And the 4S, which was the fifth iteration but dropped the “G”. Not since SimCity has a franchise shown such a reckless disregard for numbering.

O’Dell gets it right by saying (the obvious) “Likewise, the Apple brand stood for beauty in simplicity.” What could be simpler than “iMac,” “iPod”, “iPhone,” and “iPad?”

Icecreamsandwichguineapig

What struck me the most about the article, though, was this bit:

But Apple’s ethos is about so much more than hardware and technology: It’s supposed to be, as this outsider sees it, about aspiration, dreams, desires, the future, even Utopia. In a word, it’s only 30 percent about the tech and 70 percent about the branding.

(psst… “it’s only 30 percent about the tech and 70 percent about the branding” is 13 times more than “a word.”)

I’ve seen this claim made hundreds of times over the years, but this is the first I’ve seen it made by someone speaking favorably about Apple (Steve Jobs-era Apple, anyway), instead of being followed by complaints about the “Apple tax” or intellectually bankrupt words like “sheeple” and “fanboys.”

I’m assuming (and I’m being charitable in the assumption) that it’s rooted in a mis-interpretation of a talk Jobs gave about branding around the time of the “Think Different” campaign launch. But the point of that wasn’t that branding is more important than technology. The point was that the company’s core values are more important than specifications and speed bumps.

At the time, even the idea of a tech company having “core values” was unusual. The environment at the time was more like the various Android phones and tablets trying to differentiate themselves for having 4G LTE and Ice Cream Sandwich with an AMOLED screen and a 1.5GHz single-core processor instead of focusing on what you can actually do with them.

Pointing out that the new iPad has a higher resolution screen is talking about specs. Launching the new higher resolution screen along with a mobile version of iPhoto, showing how the better screen, faster wireless networking, and cloud storage can help you organize and share your photos as journals — that’s Apple branding. And “iPad HD” or “iPad Retina” or even “iPad 3″ is diametrically opposed to that branding. Saying “The iPad is the best tablet you can buy, and this is the best version of the iPad, and hey look at this happy family and their adorable children” fits the brand perfectly.

It’s been going on for well over a decade, but it still surprises me whenever I see someone making the claim that Apple’s appeal is mostly marketing. So much tech writing describes MacBooks, iPods, iPhones, and iPads as “status symbols,” taking it as a given that people buy them for the huge, shiny (or glowing) Apple logo on the back as opposed to what’s inside. That kind of knee-jerk reaction is baffling to me, and I’m someone who often has a hard time getting past the preconceived notion that anybody who drives a BMW is a douchebag.

Every Apple computer I’ve ever bought has turned out to be the best computer I’ve ever owned. (Except for the mice; the mice all universally suck). Every time I’ve tried to go with a Windows PC to save money, or to get some feature that’s not available on the Apple equivalent, I’ve gotten burned — burned enough that I’ve actually lost money in the transaction. I couldn’t care less whether it says Apple on the outside, as long as it works as well as I’ve grown accustomed to expect. Saying that it’s “only 30 percent tech” is pretty ludicrous, when no other company handles the technology as well.

Are there really people who buy these things for the logo, or because Steve Jobs told them to?

Are you not entertained?!

Something about The Hunger Games isn’t sitting right with me, and I’m not quite sure exactly what it is. Minor spoilers abound.

A couple of months ago, I made a very modest resolution to read twelve books by the end of the year. By the beginning of March, I was already starting to lag behind, so I decided to cheat a little by reading something that was quick and “easy.” I’ve been seeing plenty of positive-bordering-on-breathless reviews, both professional and from friends, for The Hunger Games, describing it with all the standard book review catch phrases like “a page-turner” and “addictive” and “I couldn’t put it down.”

They may have been under-selling it. I read the book over two days, and I can’t remember the last time I finished a book — “young adult” or not — that quickly. I actually found myself getting nervous when I wasn’t reading it, anxious to get back into the story.

What’s most remarkable to me is that it was so compelling even as I spent the entire time second-guessing it and mentally criticizing it. It wasn’t the cliffhangers that kept me going, since I was able to predict most of what was going to happen. Reading the blurbs for the sequel had already spoiled the broad strokes of the ending, but until the last couple of chapters (which were very well done) I’d been able to see all of the plot developments coming from several pages away. So it wasn’t gimmickry or cheap tricks, but just some damn good writing.

At first I was a little annoyed that the book seemed so light on descriptions — for a book that spends so much of its time “world building,” most of the places and characters received just a cursory description. But I soon realized that the depth was sacrificed in favor of near-perfect pacing. Slower moments take time to set the scene and even meander into a flashback, while the action-filled scenes have sentences that crash into each other in their eagerness to reach the climax. Entire days pass between one sentence and the next. Events that change the course of the entire story are tacked onto the end of an otherwise unassuming paragraph.

And the book is very sparing in its use of melodramatic one-sentence paragraphs.

In fact, the story is told so well that I quickly forgot any uneasiness I was feeling about how derivative it is. It feels like a mash-up of Battle Royale, The Lottery, the story of Theseus and the Minotaur, Lord of the Flies, The Running Man, and 1984, comparing favorably to some of its sources while being less resonant than others. Unlike Battle Royale — and to be fair I’ve only seen the movie and not yet read the book — Suzanne Collins wisely chose to keep most of the “tributes” nameless and unidentified, and not to focus on the brutality of their deaths. This keeps it from feeling too exploitative, but it also loses most of its impact as dark satire.

It’s also frequently, and unfortunately, compared to the Twilight series. I suppose it’s inevitable, since it’s a popular young adult series with a young woman as the protagonist. And that’s the first point where I agree completely with my friend Daniel Herrera’s review: there’s no comparison. The Twilight books seem like even more of an embarrassment when you see an author create a young female protagonist as interesting as Katniss Everdeen. In fact, I have to wonder whether Suzanne Collins was taking digs at the Twilight books when she described a young male character as “sparkling,” and then later when Katniss thinks, “Twilight is closing in and I am ill at ease.” It makes me extremely ill at ease to see such a simpering, vapid, and downright unlikable character as Bella Swan become popular with so many girls, when Katniss is fully-realized, capable, independent, interesting, and flawed.

But that leads directly to my biggest problem with the book: whether it’s a requirement for young adult books, or whether The Hunger Games was intended to be a novel take on it, the book still puts so much of its focus on a teen love triangle. It’s frustrating, because the book handles it as well as possible — Katniss is anything but lovestruck and flighty; she’s even precociously cynical about the whole idea of romance. But romance still dominates the story. It sends a mixed signal — even a girl as strong as Katniss is still somehow incomplete without the right man.

And going back to the complaint about its being derivative: while I spent most of the book wishing that the romantic angle had been omitted or downplayed, I was still impressed that it was handled so cleverly. Throughout, it’s unclear to everyone, even to Katniss herself, whether she’s acting out of genuine feelings or just putting on a show for the audience. But reading reviews of The Hunger Games, I learned that even that is an idea already explored by They Shoot Horses, Don’t They?

My other complaint is that the story seems to go out of its way to undermine what Katniss accomplishes. She’s established as extremely capable on her own, but then is given exactly what she needs at exactly the right moment — either by another character, or literally by a silver parachute falling from the sky. Of course it’s good to keep her realistically a human teenager instead of a super-hero, but each time another plot contrivance came along, I wished the deus ex machina were better hidden.

Ultimately, none of my criticisms of the book invalidate it. If anything, it’s more a case of two leaps forward followed by a step back. As far as best-selling young adult series go, I wouldn’t hesitate to recommend it: it’s clearly aimed at a different audience from the Harry Potter series, but it’s still better written and full of much, much better characterizations. And of course, I’d gladly slap copies of the Twilight books out of young girls’ hands (and their mothers’) and replace them with a copy of The Hunger Games.

With the movie series starting later this month, I’m looking forward to seeing audiences go crazy for a genuinely strong and capable character. (Which reminds me: Brave is later this year as well. It’s finally a good year for daughters!) I’m also looking forward to seeing the sponsorships and corporate tie-ins: maybe The Hunger Games brought to you by Snickers?

But I’m still not sure whether I liked the book enough to dive right into the sequels. It’s probably ghoulish to admit that I’m more eager to read about kids killing each other than I’m interested in reading about a girl deciding which non-threatening boy to go steady with. But it’s a stupid question anyway; obviously I’m team Gale all the way.