Strike!

It may have come to your attention that in the US at the moment there is a writers strike on. Now equally this may well have passed you by, but if you don’t know much about it then ponder the fact that a few months down the line and the effects will be felt by all. Currently all members of the WGA (writers Guild of America) are on strike, they will produce no writing during this time. Of course this has led to productions being shut down of many of TV’s big shows, 24 has already announced it has been postponed indefinitely and will not start in January as usual, writers also from Lost and nearly every major TV drama have joined in meaning that while the companies may have a certain amount of materials stored up, if the strike continues for a while this will soon run out and the lack of programming on TV will be all too obvious during much of next year.

So what’s the fuss all about? Why are the writers striking? Well many much more knowledgeable bloggers than myself have answered this very question eloquently and I shall link to a number of articles on this subject in a minute. But in layman’s terms, and from my limited understanding, it comes down to the subject of residuals and the internet. Currently a writer is paid in two ways, they get an initial fee for a piece of work and in exchange for signing the work over to the studios (so they become the recognised legal authors) they are entitled to residuals. These are basically royalties, the same as what artists get for music and authors get for books. So every time a TV episode is repeated on TV, or bought on DVD the writers gets a small share of the money (currently 0.3%). The systems works well because the media is an uncertain beast, when writing a pilot for a TV series or a screenplay both the writer and the production company have no idea how big (if any) a success the finished product will be. Consequently a better received, and thus promoted, watched and sold, product leads to more money both for the studio and the writer, the risk of the new remains but it is now shared. After all if there was simply a set fee it would unfair for a studio to continue to make millions from the property years later and have the writer lumped with nothing.

The internet is where the problem lies. You see the future will see convergence between TV and the internet and eventually the two will become one. Already stations are streaming whole episodes and series on their websites and even offering them for download from places like iTunes, and yet the writers have no residuals when it comes to the internet. The production companies claim these streaming broadcasts are merely ‘promotions’, and yet they feature adverts (which make the studio’s money). The strike has happened now because writers got stung a few years back with the proliferation of DVD sales, whereby the studios were very reluctant to negotiate a residuals deal. Rather than make the same mistake twice the guild has decided to sort out internet residuals now, rather than down the line. You see already it is costing money, by streaming episodes or offering them for download the networks don’t need to repeat old shows anymore, in realty they’ve found a way of bypassing the writer and keeping all the profits to themselves. The studios argue that they don’t make any money off of the internet, an argument that is irrelevant especially as residuals deal with a portion of the profits made from a property, hence if the studio makes a loss, the writer doesn’t get anything. The trouble is neither side wants to budge and in the long run it is the viewers who will pay. Writers get a rough enough deal as it is sometimes, they also have pretty amazing jobs, but anyone who views them as whining spoilt rich kids needs to get acquainted with the way things really work. It is a justified and long established idea that creative artists are entitled to royalties and for the muti-billion dollar networks who already control so much of the media and even the production of that media to play the innocent victim in all this is unacceptable.

A deal will be done, and at the end of the day the writers probably will get slightly screwed over once again, but the strike is as much about the result as it is taking a stand. It is heartening to see so many actors and producers supporting the writers, they are the lifeblood of the entertainment industry and are so easily overlooked. If someone asked you to name 10 TV writers could you? I think even I might struggle. Writers fade to the background, many intentionally, but they deserve the proper credit and reward for the job they do. From these people come all the thousands of hours of free entertainment we enjoy every year, some of which affect us in real and life changing ways. Without the writers there would be no TV, and if things continue the way they are, the executives are going to find this out sooner rather than later.

If this story interests you at all then do read up on the stories below, I frequent some of the blogs and they are always entertaining and insightful and, being an (aspiring) writer myself something to look up to and learn from.

The Artful Writer – Blog of Craig Mazin screenwriter of Scary Movie 3 and 4, his site is a veritable goldmine of info on the WGA and the strike and is well worth reading.

John August – Screenwriter of Big Fish and Go details more about residuals and the strike on his blog.

John Rogers – Screenwriter and TV writer whose blog constantly makes me laugh has a lot on the strike as well.

Ken Levine – Legendary writer of shows such as Cheers, Mash and Fraiser keep daily updates of the strike amongst his other humorous posts.

Josh Friedman - Elusive scribe has his own unique take on events, read if you dare.

Article by Damon Lindeloff, one of the key writers from Lost on the strike.

Ratatouille

Two years ago Brad Bird made my favourite film of the year, it was an animated film called The Incredibles, his first film for animation giants Pixar, and barring some extraordinary films passing my way in the next two months, he’s gone and done it again with Ratatouille. The film began life under director Jan Pinkava before Brad was brought on board, normally this is cause for concern, but somehow Bird and Pixar reached deep down and pulled out their A-game. This truly is a magnificent film, funny, touching, absolutely gorgeous to look at and full of heart. What Bird is so good at is working on many levels, all Pixar films have this and it’s what makes them so special. No other production company in recent memory, aside from maybe Studio Ghibli, has produced such a diverse, and high quality series of films and seemingly they just keep getting better, the fact that they churn these masterpieces out at a rate of one a year just makes the films more astonishing. Remy (Patten Oswalt) is a rat that dreams of bigger things than simply eating garbage. He longs to be a chef and loves food. Sure enough when the chance comes he teams up with hapless garbage boy Linguini at Paris’s most famous restaurant and gets a chance to shine. The way that this unusual premise is built upon and established is great, it feels natural and that’s no mean feat when the mere idea of a rat in the kitchen is enough to put most people off their food. Remy himself is a great character, astute, ambitious and torn between his calling and his nature, once again the people (and the rats) of the world feel completely real, there is nothing artificial about them and once again the subtle bits of animation convey so much without the need for words. People always talk about animated films being for kids but there is much here for everyone to enjoy, the deeper meanings of the story and the lavish attention to detail appeal to cinema lovers of all ages, it is obvious that Bird practices what he preaches; the love care and attention are worth it for quality. There is no settling for second best and this striving for greatness is what fuels the film, its message that greatness can come from anywhere is surprisingly heartfelt and a great call to arms for creative people anywhere. The simple act of putting yourself out there and chasing your dreams is celebrated here, a heady message for an animated film about talking rats. As usual the animation is peerless, Pixar have become so accomplished so talented that they make it looks easy. In fact the animation fades into the background, not because it isn’t good, but because it’s so good that you forget about it, you become engrossed in the story and the characters and the fact that they only exist in a computer escapes your mind. This is a living breathing film and on a technical level it amazes, but on an emotional level it accomplishes something else entirely. Paris has never looked so inviting, food is rendered to look mouth-watering and there is seemingly nothing these guys can’t do. There are so many thing I could talk about relating to the film, but I don’t want to spoil it, least of all the hilarious short film that accompanies it beforehand. This is a film best discovered knowing as little as possible, a film that feels fresh and original and in the current cinematic climate that in itself is something to be proud of. I’m sorry if this review sounds like gushing but there is nothing more I can do. This is one of those films that leaves you on a high, reminds you of the magic of cinema and that you keep revisiting for days afterwards. Like the perfect meal Ratatouille somehow mixes all the right ingredients and creates something truly special. This may well be Pixar’s best film, and one I know I will savour and cherish for years to come. A masterclass in storytelling, animation as well as an entertaining and heartfelt ode to creativity, passions and the talent that is uncovered from the most unlikely of places. The best film of the year and yet another reason why Pixar remain one of cinemas greatest treasures.

Reviews, scores and sequels – far from perfect?

There has been a air of muttering and discussion in the gaming community recently with regards to game reviews and scores, in my opinion very welcome discussion as to whether the current model and system is effective and accurate and indeed a fair way of rating and judging the plethora of new releases that hit the shelves every week, some with every increasing hype and publicity surrounding them. Now that we are in November there are two months coming up packing to the gills with big releases, and that’s after such big titles as Halo 3, Bioshock, Metroid Prime 3, Heavenly Sword, Guitar Hero 3 and the Orange Box have already been released within the last couple of months. With all these titles competing for your hard earned money reviews will play a big part in many people’s purchasing decisions, so what exactly is the problem with the way things are at the moment? Well one of the big things people are quite rightly contesting is the scoring systems favoured throughout the industry. Typically games tend to be rated either out of 10 or 100 (as a percentage) but when it comes down to it who decides if a game is worth 86 or 58 or even quite how a 77 game is better than a 76 game? Personal choice? Along with these rather meaningless numbers that can be associated with a game, comes the belief that anything below 70-ish is rubbish. This comes from having too wide a spread of numbers, logically a 50 game should be average, not bad but not great either, however in reality these games are marked in the 60s or 70s. Very few games tend to score below 50, So why have these numbers as an option? Even the magazines and sites that score out of 10 don’t avoid this problem, naturally a game rated 5 will be seen as bad, and best avoided, so average games scores get a bump as a result. Then comes along the issue of perfection. Scoring on a numerical scale implies that a perfect score is possible, it also implies that a game that received this mark is therefore perfect. This is, of course, a load of old rubbish, there is no such quantifiable thing as a perfect game, no such measures exist to mark such a thing, even without such heavy weighing factors as personal opinions there are millions of variables which cannot be measures in such a way. I mean what in life can be? Have you ever had a perfect meal? A perfect date? The term can only exist in quantifiable situations, a perfect score on a maths test for example, a perfect score on the snooker table etc. But while games remain scored this way reviewers will be reluctant to hand out 10s, equally a scoring system out of 100 will never give out the 100 score, meaning that there are scores that will never be used as part of the rating system, it’s crazy. Logically a 10 game should be a rare occurrence, but not impossible. A game that stands head and shoulders above others, that represents the pinnacle of the genre or platform should be applauded as such. One solution is to adapt a similar rating to that used with relation to films, a scar system out of 5, as some have commented a pictorial system doesn’t imply perfection and therefore is less psychologically limiting. However many would argue that scoring at all does games a disservice, how often have you looked a review score first without paying attention to the writing of the review? After 500 words of carefully selected prose, all that matters to some is the number at the end, similarly after years of hard work and thousands of man hours poured into a 20+ hour gaming experience, for many people it boils down to the review score. In this respect I have sympathy, gaming has become such a lucrative hobby and with so many games vying for your attention often review scores are all they have. But equally this leads to rushed reviews, heavily weighted scores for the most hyped games and a general unbalancing of the system. Big magazines and websites fight to get their reviews of the big games out first scrambling to deadlines, are they giving the games a proper run through? How can you just such things as the online service and longevity of the ingame features when you have a couple of days to complete the game and get your review up? Yet these articles are so sought after, and so lucrative that the cycle continues. Unfortunately because of the nature of the beast review scores are here to stay, like them or not. Without a measurable way of rating a game the power would be lost. Central to much of this debate, and what certainly sparked these thoughts in my own mind was the subject of sequels. Unlike films, where sequels are often viewed as inferior and money driven, gaming suits itself to sequels and they have been, in one form or another, it’s backbone for many years now. Yet as new generations of games roll around there are cries to old days of innovation and creativeness, but what many fail to realise is that such a leap is not possible any more. How can any game simulate the jump from 2D to 3D. From pong to Mario? When any art form is in its infancy the leaps are huge and revolutionary, but become less as time progresses. Film critics do not criticise films because they fail to replicate the same sense of shock as the first time they saw Star Wars, or watching a film in colour, or with sound? So why do a lot of game reviews begrudge such a thing? A recent review of Mario Galaxy in Games TM magazine praises the game highly, in fact I spotted barely a negative comment, so why did it not garner a maximum score? What else would it have needed to do to make this jump? The review claims that it is more of an evolution than a revolution – similar claims were recently made of Halo 3 recently. But what else could the developers do? There may well have been justifiable reasons for the score the game received but they were not clear in the review. Sometimes it feels like sequels are actually punished for building on work established in their predecessors, especially if their predecessors are celebrated. No game can replicate what Mario 64 brought to the table, so why mark them down for this? If Galaxy can improve this, add new ideas and show genuine innovation and be celebrated as a better game in itself, why should it be marked down? Surely it should be marked up? I admit that games should be punished for not showing innovation and merely being carbon copies of what has gone before (many EA sports game spring to mind) but the notion that a game could never score as highly as Zelda Ocarina of Time or Mario 64 purely because they are not as revolutionary now is ridiculous and basically trips up all new games at the first hurdle by saying ‘no matter how good you are, you can’t match up to this’ which limits the reviewers opinion from the off. A game that is a sequel needs to be looked at in light of its place in a series, but also as a game in its own right. If the previous game had not existed, what would you think of it? Without the hype and the previews and the claims of the developer, how do you feel when you play the game? How does it compare to similar titles? If the bias of the familiar is clouding out your opinion, ask yourself whose fault that is, the games or your own expectations? This is not an issue that will go away any time soon, but in the future when looking at games, take time to read the reviews, read a few not just one and from a variety of sources. Ultimately games are to be enjoyed, worrying about which games are better than others, or certain games place in the all time rankings is missing the point, as I have said before the games are meant to be enjoyed, savoured and appreciated and with such rich picking this winter, there should be plenty out there for everyone, regardless of the reviews.

Get Corrupted

Just a quick one today with some impressions of Metroid Prime 3: Corruption. I have been a huge fan of the series thoroughly enjoying the first two games in the series on the Gamecube and as such have been hotly anticipating this third game on the Wii. Having played through about the first hour or so I find myself in the position to make some initial impressions. Firstly this game starts very differently to the other Prime games, with a more obvious and involving story it draws you in nicely and makes a great change from the minimalist style of storytelling of the first two games. Immediately the thing you notice is that the game looks stunning, a definite step up from the first two games (Which both looks amazing also) Prime 3 has an amazing level of detail and architecture and the game benefits from the added grunt of the Wii. Now the Wii is never going to have Xbox 360 level graphics in purely technical terms but stylistically this is one of the best looking games I’ve seen. Added to this is the fact that it runs perfectly smoothly and the invisible loading once again helps the whole world feel connected. The controls are the biggest overhaul in the game and they work very well indeed. Utilising the Wii remote the controls are responsive and accurate, the at times frustrating slowness of the Gamecube game is gone and this is a much more fluid scheme. It does take a bit of getting used to (I’d recommend putting the sensitivity settings to advanced) but after just an hour I already much prefer it to the Cube layout and for that matter all other console FPS’s. Like I said the game starts very differently, there is a lot more interaction and team work with the Alliance which feels a bit odd, the Metroid series has always been about isolation, but it’s so well executed and feels so fresh that it really works in giving you something new. Along with the overhaul of the graphics some design elements have been re-jigged also, the visors are handily located on one button allowing you to quickly choose, and the new look to the power ups, doors and general items help the game feel new and not as cut as paste as the first two did at times. Still it is early days yet and the prospect of another giant game world to explore as Samus fills me with excitement. If you are a Wii owner who bemoans the lack of decent games you owe it to yourself to get this game, it is involving, beautiful and above all fun to play. As I have previously mentioned there is a distinct lack of advertising in relation to this game which is a massive shame, I hope that I can do my bit to spread the word and help this do well enough to justify more challenging hardcore games to be released on the Wii.

Where Nintendo is going wrong

But that’s the wrong title, you protest, surely you mean Sony! ‘Where Sony is going wrong’. Can’t be that hard to mix up the two names, can it? Well no, and I have in fact typed the correct one, for, whilst Nintendo are proving to be very successful at the moment, and Sony have had what the very generous would call a ‘difficult year’, that does not exclude them from the mistakes and pratfalls that befall all big companies. In fact were the DS and the Wii not proving to be so popular there may be some serious questions being asked of the Kyoto giant, rather than rapturous praise. However don’t get me wrong, I think Nintendo have been very clever and made a lot of good and wise decisions in the past few years, they have somehow turned around a flagging business into the model of success and done so without seemingly breaking a sweat. Through this they have remained humble and true to their core values, backing away from the proverbial slagging match that becomes technological warfare amongst the cutting edge. The fact still remains though that the console race, as many dub it, is far from over and there are several areas that Nintendo have been slow to correct or act on, that could hurt them in the future. Once the Wii is no longer new and exciting it will need a strong foundation, Nintendo’s job is to build that now for when the inevitable come-down occurs. In this article I will look at some of the questionable decisions of the past year or so, but also at action the company should be taking, but is not, remember a mistake can be one of omission as well as perpetration. 1. Attracting 3rd Parties Nintendo have always struggled in their relationship with third party developers. The reason for this is that historically Nintendo gamers have tended to buy Nintendo products over those from other companies. This trend was obvious back in the days of the N64 and continued throughout the life of the Gamecube despite many exclusive and top quality titles being released. However it must be noted that amongst these were an awful lot of rubbish games as well. Still the fact was that for whatever reason multiplatform games sell better on other systems, which led many third parties to discredit the Wii early on. When you are next in town take a look at the Wii games shelf. See all those party games, ports of older games and rubbish looking film tie ins? That is the result of this discredit. As soon as the Wii was proving to be a massive success third parties wanted in, unfortunately because they were late to the game, and making games takes quite a long time, many rushed ports and half finished games to shelves, desperate for some of the success. However it hasn’t exactly worked out for them, being that consumers can be more wary than some think. Charging full price for a port of a PS2 game is beyond cheeky and Wii has been sullied by these bad games. Still Nintendo should have been more vocal from the start in attracting these developers. While it is true that some companies only started developing for the Wii when it was launched others were on board beforehand, but Nintendo were slow releasing development kits and licenses and offered little help. Recently they have been improving third party relations but it’s a two sided coin. Third parties need to ensure they release quality products on the Wii, but Nintendo need to support them, advertise them and the public need to buy them. Once third party games starts to sell more will come, if the dearth of multiplatform releases with badly implanted control remains, then Nintendo, despite the huge console sales, could still be struggling software-wise. 2. Growing the attach rate So how does a console that has outsold everything consistently all year, struggle to sell games? Well it comes down to attach-rate. This is the number of games per console that is sold. This is a good figure to be able to see whether people, after buying a console, are keeping up by actually buying games for it. The Xbox 360 leads the way in this field with its more hardcore user base buying between 5 and 10 games each, Sony has struggled but bundles and such have meant more game sales. Nintendo however have always struggled, with the Wii it is a slightly different matter, with such a wide reaching console those elderly grandma’s who love playing Wii Sports are unlikely to rush out for the new Madden football game, but it is still a problem if, with a such a big user base your games are being outsold. Using Madden as an example, even though it was released on all three next gen systems at the same time the Wii version got trounced in sales – the message was clear, the Wii has a vastly different user base. Developers are cottoning onto this though and with original games such as My Sims and Zach and Wiki as well as EA’s upcoming Wii Playground developers are, more and more trying to connect with the Wii’s audience to create the next ‘big hit’. I only hope this happens soon before developers get tired of trying, there seems no logical reason why, with so many more units in homes, games can’t be huge sellers on the Wii, especially those games that offer something other consoles can’t, it’s just a case of finding the right formula. 3. Advertising One reason game sales may be down is advertising, or lack of it. Many posts have been made recently in online communities about Nintendo’s lack of aggression when it comes to marketing their titles, for example Metroid Prime 3 is released in Europe on Friday but I have yet to see a single advert or announcement relating to this. Nintendo have said that they are trying a new strategy of advertising games in the few weeks before launch so as not to jump the gun, but they seem unwilling to pay for the big advertising that may push games such as this into people’s hands. Nintendo are making a killing from console sales at the moment yet need to be more aggressive in selling the games, third party games as well. The introduction of the Metroid 3 channel you can download to the Wii is good start, but it needed more fanfare and more to back it up with. Nintendo may hope such games will sell on name alone, but until they get out of these bad habits (advertising has never been a strong point) sales will continue to be disappointing. Case in point is Guitar Hero 3. This will be a huge game, the first two were amazingly popular, this is the first time the game has been on a Nintendo system, with the guitar accessory that fits the Wii-remote neatly inside and online options the Wii version could be a massive hit, moreso than the PS3 and Xbox versions, but people need to know about it. There need to be ads highlighting the differences and getting the message out there, to miss something like this is to miss a trick and customers Nintendo can get buying games now, will pay off in the future in terms of loyalty and developer commitment. If Guitar hero 3 sells a million on Wii, that’s a guarantee that more games of its ilk will make their way in the future. 4. Embracing online gaming The Wii has online gaming, however while this is alright and with Mario Kart and Smash Bros. coming up, about to be expanded, it is still a shadow of what you can get on the PS3 or through Xbox Live. Now I’m not saying Nintendo should copy those schemes, but more commitment to downloadable content, demo’s for example, and the removal of friend codes for games (along with the introduction of voice chat) would allow their games to be at least comparable. As it is the Wii has a good basic set up, but feels ancient next to the competition. Online may not be the focus of the Wii but there is so much that could be done with it that it feels as if Nintendo aren’t bothering some of the time. Again if developers were given more tools and access we might stop seeing games that are online for other consoles but not for Wii, there is no excuse for this and the removal of online functionality may be a good reason why some games fail to sell on Nintendo’s console. 5. Alienating the hardcore Finally Nintendo need to be wary that in attracting casual gamers and people who have never played before they risk alienating the gaming fans they first attracted. For this they need games, and a wider variety, preferably with some of the aforementioned online functionality included. The Wii may be less powerful than the competition but it’s no reason why shooters, RPG’s and action games won’t work on the system. The Wii may not be the hardcore console of choice, but can work well as a backup. For example not many people will own an Xbox and PS3, but many may have either and a Wii. The variety in games means it is not directly competing, but Nintendo still need to support these people, as do third parties. For this reason I hope that come Christmas we see some big sellers on the Wii, games such as Pro Evolution Soccer (coming to Wii for the first time) should make a difference, but as I commented before it is a fine line to walk. Overall Nintendo remains in a strong position and will continue to sell out over the holidays, but can’t afford to rest on its laurels. As games get more advanced on Xbox and PS3 and the second and third generation of titles are released Nintendo needs to make sure it has enough up its sleeve to keep the magic going. For the start of a consoles life lazy ports and party games are to be expected, if the landscape remains the same in 12 months we will have a problem on our hands. The question to ask is, once you’ve changed the face of gaming – what do you do next?