The new (and first) trailer for DC's Green Lantern movie has been released. I have mixed reactions to it. First off, I really love most of the space stuff and mythology included in the trailer. Kilowog, Sinestro and the other various Corps members look incredible. Abin Sur, wow. I can't wait for those scenes on Oa.
I am not a huge fan of Blake Lively's first spoken dialogue. I heard another blog refer to it as robotic... and yes, it so is. I have never seen Gossip Girl, but I loved Blake in The Town and after seeing that movie I had high hopes for her in this. But that "This test today, it's important," wow, just bad. And actually, now that I think about it, it may be worse than I feared. It may be that the writing is just bad. Who speaks like that? Maybe Yoda, but not any real people. "This coffee I'm drinking, it's hot." Just odd. But there is a scene later in the trailer where she is reassuring Hal and says "You have the ability to overcome fear," and it comes off as much more natural and well done. So let's hope that first bit of dialogue was just an unfortunate misstep.
Ryan Reynolds looks great. But to me, much more like Kyle Rayner than Hal Jordan. That scene in the alley way brought back memories of Ganthet giving Kyle the ring for the first time and made me wonder if they were trying to work in some of Kyle's origin into the movie. I am 99% sure they are not, it is just a coincidence. Reynolds voice work and facial expressions are just spot on, he can play the serious, driven hero just as well as he can pull off the lighthearted quippy banter. I am sure he will be terrific in the role. And what a coup for Warner Bros. and DC. The trailer hits with the opening of the second to last Harry Potter movie and also the same week Reynolds is named People's sexist man alive.
The other thing that kind of scares me, is Hal's costume. At times it seems... for lack of a better word... off. The mask does not work. Not sure what they need to do to fix it, but clearly something. It looks like he has green paint on his face. They need to add some weight or substance to it. Add some effect to make it clear it is generated by the ring and is in fact a construct. The scene at the end with him changing into the costume, it is also odd. It seems like they digitally made the costume and his body like millimeters too small. I can't point to anything specific, his body just looks slightly unnatural. But in other scenes, like where he is saving the child, it looks fine... good even.
Finally, the flying. I am not a big fan of the jittery flying that is on display in one of the last shots of the trailer. There is no air in space, he is not experiencing turbulence. I am hoping this is just a way to establish is newness with the ring and over time he will become more experienced and therefore steady as he flies, but I am not a fan so far. Other shots, like Salaak lifting off and turning around are just spectacular. BTW, one other thought I had about the shaky flying was that maybe it was done to add a visual clue that he was flying or even flying fast since the character does not have a cape. But really, there are other ways of giving visual clues that a character is flying fast in space, just look at all the space/sci-fi movies that are out there. Rarely do you see space ships tossing and turning, other effects are used to give the illusion of speed, and they work much better.
So that is it. My initial thoughts on the new trailer. Like it, and as I put on Facebook, color me a green shade of optimistic ;-) If you have not seen it, here is it. Enjoy! (Oh, and to really enjoy it, make it full screen and upscale it to 720p :-) )
Friday, November 19, 2010
Monday, September 13, 2010
Licensing vs. Purchasing
*I started writing this... wow... over two months ago. But I think it is still important, so I am just now finishing it up and actually posting it.* - November 19, 2010
I was downright shocked to see the following article over at gamespot.com today:
Court ruling could affect pre-owned game sales
Basically the article sites a US Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruling that said a consumer who had purchased a sealed copy of Autocad (computer software) could not resell the item on eBay because he did not own the software that was contained within. As a matter of fact, according to the ruling, the guy that purchased the software did not own anything! See the Autocad software came with a EULA (End User License Agreement). This document (piece of legal trickery) states that the original purchaser of the "software" did not actual purchase the software, but a license to the software and that license is non-transferable. I am not sure of all the legalities behind this and I hope to god it gets overturned upon further appeal, but for me, it raises a bigger question... When did consumers start giving up the right to own the things we purchase?
If this ruling is allowed to stand, it opens the door for all manufactures to put EULAs in all products. Basically if you purchase anything that has a EULA, you are not purchasing the actual product, but just a license to that product. So if you buy a car, you don't actually buy the car, you just are buying a license from the manufacturer to drive the car, but you can't sell the car because technically, the car still belongs to the manufacturer. If you buy a shirt, and the manufacturer puts an EULA on the collar, you can't hand the shirt down to a sibling or donate it to Goodwill because, YOU DON'T OWN THE SHIRT, you only own a license to wear the shirt, the manufacturer actually owns the shirt.
I might be taking things to an extreme with the above examples, but I really don't think so. For all the griping that the entertainment industry does about pirated materials and how much money they are losing, they themselves are engaging in a systematic process to completely take away consumer rights. They are trying to screw consumers, just as much, if not more, than they claim to be getting screwed by the consumers.
I understand the need for software companies to protect their intellectual property. At the same time, certain developers and certain companies seem to be taking greed to a whole new level.
Taking this idea of EULAs back to the video game market (the article above that prompted this post was housed on a video game site), by allowing video game developers and publishers to insert EULAs into their products, they are effectively killing the second hand gaming market. Developers have already started inserting advertisements and product placement into games. And games themselves are the most costly of all entertainment media, with the SRP of all new XBOX 360 and PS3 games being $59.99 (compared to I believe $29.99 or $34.99 for new Blu Ray movies). An argument can be made that games provide more hours of entertainment with game playthrough times ranging from 10 hours on the low end to 100 plus hours on the high end. But an argument can also be made that with the additional features stuffed on to many Blu Ray and DVDs, the gap in entertainment between the two is not that big, if it even exists at all. So you are still looking at games being one of the highest costing forms of entertainment on the market. In addition, game developers are increasing profits with in game ads and product placements, as well as cashing in on various licensing deals to have their properties appear on soda cans and pillow cases. Are we to honestly believe that they are so cash strapped, that they need to kill the second game market so that everyone has to buy a game new?
I was downright shocked to see the following article over at gamespot.com today:
Court ruling could affect pre-owned game sales
Basically the article sites a US Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruling that said a consumer who had purchased a sealed copy of Autocad (computer software) could not resell the item on eBay because he did not own the software that was contained within. As a matter of fact, according to the ruling, the guy that purchased the software did not own anything! See the Autocad software came with a EULA (End User License Agreement). This document (piece of legal trickery) states that the original purchaser of the "software" did not actual purchase the software, but a license to the software and that license is non-transferable. I am not sure of all the legalities behind this and I hope to god it gets overturned upon further appeal, but for me, it raises a bigger question... When did consumers start giving up the right to own the things we purchase?
If this ruling is allowed to stand, it opens the door for all manufactures to put EULAs in all products. Basically if you purchase anything that has a EULA, you are not purchasing the actual product, but just a license to that product. So if you buy a car, you don't actually buy the car, you just are buying a license from the manufacturer to drive the car, but you can't sell the car because technically, the car still belongs to the manufacturer. If you buy a shirt, and the manufacturer puts an EULA on the collar, you can't hand the shirt down to a sibling or donate it to Goodwill because, YOU DON'T OWN THE SHIRT, you only own a license to wear the shirt, the manufacturer actually owns the shirt.
I might be taking things to an extreme with the above examples, but I really don't think so. For all the griping that the entertainment industry does about pirated materials and how much money they are losing, they themselves are engaging in a systematic process to completely take away consumer rights. They are trying to screw consumers, just as much, if not more, than they claim to be getting screwed by the consumers.
I understand the need for software companies to protect their intellectual property. At the same time, certain developers and certain companies seem to be taking greed to a whole new level.
Taking this idea of EULAs back to the video game market (the article above that prompted this post was housed on a video game site), by allowing video game developers and publishers to insert EULAs into their products, they are effectively killing the second hand gaming market. Developers have already started inserting advertisements and product placement into games. And games themselves are the most costly of all entertainment media, with the SRP of all new XBOX 360 and PS3 games being $59.99 (compared to I believe $29.99 or $34.99 for new Blu Ray movies). An argument can be made that games provide more hours of entertainment with game playthrough times ranging from 10 hours on the low end to 100 plus hours on the high end. But an argument can also be made that with the additional features stuffed on to many Blu Ray and DVDs, the gap in entertainment between the two is not that big, if it even exists at all. So you are still looking at games being one of the highest costing forms of entertainment on the market. In addition, game developers are increasing profits with in game ads and product placements, as well as cashing in on various licensing deals to have their properties appear on soda cans and pillow cases. Are we to honestly believe that they are so cash strapped, that they need to kill the second game market so that everyone has to buy a game new?
Thursday, January 28, 2010
My Rant from Facebook circa 1/28/10
At the risk of sounding like a fuddy duddy, I have to question the statistics behind the recent "93% of people won't copy and past this as their status" posts that I have been seeing recently. I am pretty sure I saw the exact same statistic is attributed to about 4 posts I have seen in the past week. Is the likelihood ...of any post being re-posted always 7% regardless of the topic?
I guess I just don't like the whole guilt trip aspect of these types of posts, so I have to be sarcastic and question them. If you would like me to make my status something about a cause you believe in, please just ask me to, I probably would not have a problem with it, unless I vehemently oppose the cause. But please don't try and make me feel bad because I am not one of the elite 7% that re-posts something.
And I apoplogize to anyone that thinks I am bashing thier posts, I really don't mean to, I am trying to express my frustration with what I percieve as the guilt trip aspect of the posts. I am Catholic, I have enough guilt ;-)
I know all my friends that have posted these are just helping to raise awareness of a issue they feel strongly about, and I think that is a very good and important thing.
Anyway, the original posts are good ideas and concepts, and I should just shut up. So I will.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)