The Hobbit - the Desolation of Smaug

So I recently went with some friends to watch the newest installment of The Hobbit, subtitled The Desolation of Smaug. Following the adventures of Bilbo Baggins (played by Martin Freeman) and the thirteen dwarves and one rather cranky old wizard, they reached their location, but their journey was still very far from over. So, being a sequel directed by Peter Jackson, this movie obviously has to be great, right? Perhaps even better than the first one?

Erm... that depends on who you ask. Personal opinion? ... First one was better.

Okay, who fed beans to the gigantic dragon again?

Don't get me wrong - it's not a bad movie by any standard. The scenery is breathtaking, the characters are likeable and memorable (though some dwarves aren't as memorable - a necessary sacrifice), the plot is for the most part well-constructed. However, it feels like Peter Jackson is just overdoing it on far too many things. Too much CG, too much suspension of disbelief, too much unnecessary character development, too many battles. It just felt like that Peter Jackson was tacking on far, far too many unnecessary things in the movie that could easily be cut out and wouldn't do a bloody thing overall. The first movie already had a good deal of unnecessary stuff, but this one is taking the cake and running with it.

I don't care if you have a good reason lore-wise to be in here, GTFO LEGOLAS.

One of the biggest examples of unnecessary padding is the inclusion of Legolas and the original character Tauriel, played by Evangeline Lily of Lost fame. There's something of a love triangle that develops between one of the dwarves, Fili, and the elves Legolas and Tauriel. I'll be blunt - this whole love triangle serves as nothing more than a fake attempt at drama, and the inclusion of Legolas has to be one of the most cynical moves I've seen in movies yet. Although Legolas has a good excuse to be here (he's the son of Thranduil, the Elvenking in the books), he was utterly unnecessary. Every scene he shows up could be labeled or subtitled, 'Gratuitous Fangirl Pandering', because that's essentially what it is. He's there only to act like a racist dick and do cool stuff.

As for Tauriel... by the gods, could one find a more cliched character?! A princess who dreams of seeing the world beyond her castle, starts having a forbidden relationship (said love interest of hers is not only a pauper, but a dwarf, adding racism to the mix) and just wants to go out and have adventures? Oh yeah, sure, that hasn't been done A COUPLE TRILLION TIMES ALREADY. The inclusion of Legolas and Tauriel hurt the movie a huge deal and I could not stop thinking how unnecessary both of these characters and their plot was. Maybe it's because I'm a Tolkien fanboy who hates deviation from canon, but I can usually just forget what I read to enjoy a good movie. This, however, I can't swallow.

Thorin, you can either develop in one movie or in three. MAKE UP YOUR MIND.

When we finished the first movie, we saw Thorin finally accepting Bilbo Baggins as an integral part of the company as much as any of the dwarves. It was a touching moment of friendship no doubt. So why in the second movie did we completely backtrack, once again with Thorin thinking of Bilbo as nothing more than a mere 'burglar'? Okay, sure he did seem to respect Bilbo more for the acts he does (praising him when he saved the company's collective arses more than a few times), but all bets are off when they reach the Lonely Mountain. Here, all the character development is thrown out the door as Thorin becomes greedy and wants the Arkenstone enough to treat Bilbo (and maybe the rest of the company) as expendable. To be fair, though, the other dwarves are now calling out Thorin for his callousness, particularly Balin, who was shown to be loyal to him to the very end. Those who know the lore would think that this is the effect of one of the Six Rings of the Dwarves (which inflames greed to unhealthy levels, but this is still stretching it), but for the casual moviegoer... the change is jarring and inconsistent.

Yep, he's still got the Precious.

Now on the flip side, Martin Freeman and Ian McKellan still give us great performances as Bilbo and Gandalf respectively. Bilbo managed to grow some balls since the first movie thanks to all his adventures, but he still remains an adorably dorky kind of guy that one can't help but love. He can be stabbing and slashing at spiders at one moment and tripping over a tree root the next. However, with his possession of the One Ring (not a spoiler at this point, considering the earlier Lord of the Rings movies and how it's shown as a F***ING EVIL THING every single time it appears here), there are some moments where he's possessive over it, and goes on surprisingly vicious murder streaks if something tries to take or claim it... and freaking out afterward, horrified by his brutality. Handled wrong, this would've been too much and probably would've had me rolling my eyes. However, Martin Freeman handles it so well and realistically, I can see Bilbo genuinely snapping then being terrified of not only himself, but the Ring... yet can't throw it away. It goes to show that Martin Freeman is a damn talented actor.

Looks like an excellent summer home.

Gandalf admittedly gets a good deal less screentime in the second movie as he does the first since he often has to run off, but he does the same thing in the books so that can slide. McKellan is pretty much Gandalf to a T, no questions asked, showing his gruff but very intelligent self... and also his very mischievous side as well that he seems to be prone to from time to time. The part about Beorn was particularly funny, though I REALLY wished they added Gandalf trying to tell the story to Beorn and modifying the details until Beorn just throws up his hands and goes, "Oh, gimme a break!!" That might have ruined the tone of the movie, but oh well. Still, Gandalf gets a level in being a dumbass to create more unnecessary drama and give us bigger reveals. If you must go into a dark, creepy, ruined castle that screams 'THIS PLACE IS EVIL!!!' solo, you do NOT essentially blow a trumpet every twenty feet to make sure everyone in the vicinity knows you're there! To be fair, though, Gandalf did pay for it - painfully, I might add - though the whole thing could've been avoided in the first place.

And speaking of Dol Guldur, there was one huge part that I REALLY did not like. Skip this paragraph if you do not want spoilers. No, skip it now because it's a doozy, unless you're a Tolkien fan and already know this or you've already seen the movie. So seriously, skip this paragraph. ... Still here? Okay, so the biggest problem is when Sauron shows up. He shows up as this torrent of darkness and shadows which is rather cool, sometimes taking a somewhat human yet not really form. And this might seem little to you, but... Sauron talks. As in actual, comprehensible words and sentences. Okay, once he started talking, Sauron became a thousand times LESS ominous and scary. Something that talks like that gives us the feeling he's a sentient creature, only a bit more above us rather than the freaking god of darkness that he is. Sure, it's the Black Speech which was designed by Tolkien to sound evil, but... I'm sorry, that just ruined him. If they just kept Sauron's 'speech' to those indistinct whispers that we kept hearing in Lord of the Rings, I'd be absolutely terrified. It would give us the feeling that he is something that cannot be be matched by mortals, cannot be matched by anyone on our level, a distinct feeling of inhumanity that gives us the feeling he is something not natural to the world. But yeah, that was botched.

Slenderman's cousin.

So what's my final opinion of The Hobbit, Desolation of Smaug? Not a bad movie, but definitely not great. In fact, it's rather weak compared to the first movie. There's a lot of other nitpicks I could give as well, but I'm not gonna whine and complain the whole way through. It's a good enough movie, but I seriously hope the third Hobbit will be better. 

That's it for now. Thanks for reading, and keep checking for any updates!

Team Games: Shared Lessons

A couple years ago, I started playing Team Fortress 2, not only because it became free, but because during my childhood, I played Team Fortress Classic. It was a game I loved, not only because of the fast-paced action, but also because of the nine unique classes requiring different playstyles in order to work right. I particularly loved the fact that it was a team game. No one was more important than the other, I could talk to my teammates over the microphone, and while I occasionally had to deal with an idiot or a jerk, for the most part, most people I talked to online were nice. We could coordinate our attacks and defenses, and if we had time, even talk about other stuff too.

Ah, childhood...

Now recently, I've started playing League of Legends. I'll be honest, although I've heard a huge amount about League of Legends, I was always scared of touching it. The horror stories I've heard about the game are more than enough to turn me off, not helped by the fact that I've played a tiny bit of the game it's derived from, Defense of the Ancients (DotA for short). DotA is a near-pure elitist game. As my cousin, who is addicted to DotA, described it to me, you're either a newb, in which case you should abandon the game, or you're a complete elitist, who knows all the mechanics like the back of their hands, the best item builds, etc etc etc - enough information to fill an entire class curriculum. There's no in-between ground, with very harsh penalties for dying even once in the game. That being said, League of Legends at least gives some more leeway for newbies, removing harsher penalties, taking out most things that require random chance, etc, making it infinitely more friendly for anyone new to the genre.

Each one of those 'tiles' is a playable champion. And we're still getting new ones.

Now, when I played League of Legends, I noticed that a lot of the lessons and playstyles that I learned in Team Fortress 2 also applied to League of Legends (different genres entirely, but the overall concepts are the same). I've also played other team games like Left 4 Dead or Warframe, and they also emphasize the same concepts. This little post here is all about what concepts I think apply to all these games I've played. REMEMBER, THIS IS STRICTLY OPINION. DO NOT BITE OF MY HEAD IF YOU DON'T AGREE. So, without further ado, let's get started.

Objectives, not kills

In all these team games I played, the general overall rule of thumb is that objectives are the first priority, with kills getting a distant second. Sure, when you get kills, it secures various advantages, whether depriving their team of firepower, weakening their defenses, perhaps even gaining some sort of resource for their death like in League of Legends, where you get gold and experience for the kill. However, most of the time, one cannot sacrifice objectives for getting kills, because at the end of the day, even if your team has 100 kills over your opponent, if your opponent completes their objective, you lose, no questions asked.

Kill all you want, if this thing on your end goes down, you're losing anyway.

That being said, it's rather surprising at how many people associate getting kills with securing objectives. Or simply ignore the objectives to score points and get kills, possibly to boost their ego. Unless the objective specifically is to kill the other team, this is not the case at all, and ego does nothing to win a game - or win any friends, for that matter. Objectives are infinitely more important, so unless you don't feel like winning at all, go for them and only kill if it's necessary.

Spawn camping's nice and all... just make sure this large control point of yours is guarded.

Think it's all about you? Good freaking luck.

Team games. Please read that first word slowly and carefully. TEAM games. Not 'I'm-totally-hot-sh**' games, not 'every-man-and-woman-and-child-for-themselves' games, team games. For those of you who STILL don't get it, what I mean is that you cannot play by yourself and expect to do even halfway well. You can't ignore your teammates for the sake of picking kills or even for securing objectives. If you do this, you're setting either yourself or for your entire team to lose the game. 

In a four-man team like in Left 4 Dead 2, acting like a hotshot gets you picked off.

Now, it's not enough to simply fight shoulder-to-shoulder. That's just single player mode with more people (as contradictory as that sounds). So what to do? Cooperation is key. For one very simple example, take the Medic from Team Fortress 2. The Medic is exactly as described - a class that goes around, healing other players, having low offensive capability. Most players don't go for the Medic simply because they want to shoot and kill people. However, the Medic is essential because he can keep up an offense or defense up a lot longer than it normally. He also has a special ability called the Ubercharge, where he can render himself and a teammate invincible for a small duration. Cooperation with said teammate is crucial, as a single Ubercharge can easily swing a losing battle into a smashing win.

These two are the most feared things in Team Fortress 2, bar none.

Social Skills - The unofficial skill that must be leveled up

We're going to try a small exercise. I'm going to present you two pieces of dialogue. Assume you are a guy with a big gun, lots of ammo, and your teammate is requesting reinforcements.

Teammate: HEY NOOB, USE UR GUN N KILL THEM, N GIMME HEALTH PACK, U SUK 2 MUCH 2 USE IT!

You: *Saves teammate*

Teammate: *Goes off without a word to resume killing*

Teammate: Need some backup, and a health pack - about to die.

You: *Saves teammate*

Teammate: Thanks. *Heads back to work*

Now, who are you more likely going to save? The second one? Thought so. In fact, you'd probably just let the guy in the first scenario die and laugh at his mangled in-game body. This section is gonna be somewhat short because that example pretty much sums up my point as succinctly as possible. Acting like a jerk is not going to do you any favors - it makes enemies of your teammates when they should be allies and friends, and they'll act like jerks in turn, whether it's 'conveniently' not noticing that they're about to be sniped to 'somehow' running past them when they could use a healing. On the other hand, if you're polite and nice about it, not only is this more likely to get what you want, be it a heal, backup firepower, etc, it's also more efficient, sparing any arguments and even spend less time typing and doing what you need to do.

Sona, a Support-type Champion. Treat her well and she'll buff you to victory.

That being said, sometimes people act like jerks and you have no choice but to put up with it. That's because like it or not, they're still part of your team. Like it or not, he still packs the firepower your team needs. Therefore, you're still gonna need to help him. Sometimes, working in a team game is all about gritting your teeth, putting up with the b**tard, and try to win the game with him (and immediately blacklisting him afterward). Arguments and dick-measuring contests are just going to contribute to inefficiency and will lead to a loss without fail. Do what you have to do, but bottom line: Don't be a jerk, and don't give jerks any fuel.

Three simple lessons I learned in team games, but they have saved me a huge amount of headache, even though they're common sense. Thanks for reading this post, and look forward to my next update!

Pacific Rim

So sorry for the long delay. Out of muse, procrastinating, work, and other stuff prevented me from posting.

These days, I work as a cashier at a Best Buy. Thanks to working there and checking people out, I can find out what kind of trends there have been in recent purchases. A month or so ago, a movie called Pacific Rim came out on DVD. I didn't watch it in theaters - I was in China at the time - but my dad got it on xfinity and we both watched it. 

You can't deny that this looks epic.

I'll be honest with you, when I first heard the premise of Pacific Rim, I just thought 'classic B-rated Hollywood movie'. And by that, I mean little plot, forgettable characters, high-flying unrealistic action. Which was alright, I guess, but it just wasn't that appealing to me these days. But the customers who bought it told me that it was actually surprisingly good. I figured, what the heck. I might as well see what the big deal is. I was proven wrong... in a good way.

Pacific Rim, directed by Guerillo del Toro, has a simple premise: Giant monsters called Kaiju (yeah, the same label given to Japanese giant creatures like Godzilla) have appeared from the Pacific Ocean via a rift in dimensions. They come in, they trash cities, we try to take them down using conventional means and fail miserably. The counter plan for these things are the Jaegers (German for 'hunter'), which are giant mechanical suits several hundred feet tall, designed explicitly to combat the Kaijus. So it's a giant slugfest between giant monsters that look like something out of a mix-and-match toy and oversized action figures, with the humans trying desperately to find a way to plug the hole to the monster world.

And this scene comes in within the first 10 minutes or so.

So with that premise, you'd just watch this for giant robots slugging giant monsters, right? Well... I won't deny that's basically what the whole movie's about. But there's a surprising amount of social connotations within the movie. With the giant monsters, there's also some mentions on dealing with their toxic blood, which renders cities uninhabitable. Also, the Jaegers are REALLY expensive, so it's not that surprising that the politicians abandon Jaegers in the prologue when the Kaiju are tearing them faster than they can build them. Also, people worship these massive Kaiju, which isn't all that surprising considering their size, strength, and ferocity, and there's a thriving black market for parts of these beasts. One guy even says that a small piece of Kaiju crap (I'm not joking here) contains enough phosphorus to fertilize and entire field!

Meet Knifehead. Guess how he got his name. Go on, guess.

Aside from that, the characters aren't too bad. Marshal Stacker Pentecost, played by Idris Elba, is easily the most interesting character in the movie. Not only does he play a commander well, he also gives off an aura of command that few people can match. One could tell that he often struggles between being a good commander and being a good human - and yes, it's visible, not just subtle things only snobby-snobs can pick up (*cough*). Mako Mori, played by Rinko Kikuchi, is not just your typical Hollywood love interest / babe. She has a surprising amount of depth, especially when you learn about her rather traumatic backstory. The interactions between Pentecost and Mori easily make the more emotional parts of this otherwise testosterone-stuffed film. 

On the other hand, the movie does suffer from weak characters - especially the main character, Raleigh Becket. Becket is a very flat character. Okay, we saw him lose his brother and it still somewhat haunts him, but that's about it. It doesn't bother him for the rest of the film except for the occasional mention. There was only one time that it was actually semi-important, and that moment was only used for triggering Mori's story. Otherwise, he's almost your typical action hero who can fight really good and is pragmatic... and that's it. There are other pilots and Jaegers introduced, and although they've been played up as some of the best of the best, they're ripped to pieces not fifteen minutes later. I understand that the movie was already long/large enough as is, but couldn't we see these metal titans live up to their reputation for a bit?

The Crimson Typhoon. Looks awesome, right? Too bad you won't see much of him.

Now then, as for the visuals.... it looks simply wonderful. Not only the designs of the Kaiju and Jaegers, but the animation. The Jaegers do move like humans, but their movements are very inorganic, befitting giant metallic suits that is run entirely by machinery and two human brains. The Kaiju's movements are much like intelligent hunters - fast, brutal, pragmatic, strong. If you're used to just random clashing or biting from the Kaiju, well, think again. When the humans say that the Kaiju are adapting, the movie shows that they mean it. The Kaiju do what they can, when they can to bring the Jaegers down. They'll use every trick up their arsenal and then some... and it's brutally successful. So what does this mean for the movie? Well, in most action movies, we know the heroes are gonna be okay. Throw a couple thousand bullets at them, they'll get right back up. Here, both sides are playing for keeps. You can see it and feel it, lending a huge amount of tension that is absent in a lot of action movies.

The Slattern. All the other Kaiju are jokes. This guy's the punchline.

So in the end, what's my opinion of it? Well, if you're looking for a great action flick that also has a surprisingly good amount of storytelling, both overt and subtle, you're looking in the right place. If you're looking for something really deep, well, you might want to go someplace else. But then, to reiterate: It's GIANT ROBOTS FIGHTING GIANT MONSTERS. What's not to like about it?! So yeah, highly recommend this movie.

Once more, thanks for reading and putting up with the delay!