My spirit animal

I will preface that it's taken me a while to come to the realisation that Charlie Brooker is my spirit animal. He is pensive, introspective, industrious and, for the liberal lavishing of icing on top of this steadfast foundation, he also has a good command of the language. It is nice to find someone else who skewers cultural devolutions and hypocrisies with such a driven consistency.

He first entered my consciousness at the point where I was first discovering Doug Stanhope - and much to my chagrin, some of his best bits came as a result of this unholy tryst (although I don't really mind - I just wanted more gold to be mined from Doug). Charlie was able to give me Doug and I was happy. Initially I wrote Charlie off as merely a TV host with nothing more to say than the words he read from the teleprompter. But I was wrong. Interestingly his views on film almost always aligned with mine. It was nice that he thought in a similar way to me and had similar views to me. But similarities do not mean you are the same entity.

His next notable foray was when he created Black Mirror which (I came to realise) is a series of disconnected episodes which almost always had a strong commentary on societal disconnects or the superficial, vapid desires which make up our culture today. But it all started with the first episode. I didn't like it, which was a problem. I was under the misconception that the next episode would follow on chronologically from this - and unfortunately I didn't enjoy the setting. But then, months later, I gave it another go and, lo and behold, the next episode was completely different ... and it was actually good (well, to my taste). This was my in - my gateway into bingeing everything else. I also realised that this Brooker fella couldn't be pigeon-holed (outside of having intelligence and high production values). Each episode was a present, waiting to be unwrapped - and then immediately tossed away. Watching on Netflix makes even great content disposable but the good shows still resonate in your subconscious even if they have seemingly been forgotten. Which brings me to my review of the latest season of Black Mirror.

Would you believe that a season could be as short as three? Nor did I but I don't mind. It had notable stars and very high production value (I would estimate at least 20 million per episode) but overall I was a little disappointed. The first episode was a bit bubble gum and a little too on the nose, with the evil music producer commoditizing a burned out pop star - and a cutesy CG robot doll. It was too meandering and not as subversive compared to the earlier seasons. The second episode was good, following the story of two old friends connecting through an innocent VR fighting game. It posed some pertinent questions which still resonate in my subconscious - even if I wish they wouldn't. Then we have the paint-drying hostage negotiation story with some bludgeoned-in cues around the evils of social media which is a little annoying. All in all I think Brooker is running out of cool ideas to pose. Perhaps it was just that he was contractually obligated to deliver a season and was forced to throw out a few B-roll ideas. I can't blame him, though - it's just that I'm a little disappointed that we didn't get more scathing social commentary. For those of you who haven't, check out Black Mirror - and stick through the episodes you don't like because I can guarantee that at least a few episodes (and, dare I say it, seasons) will stick with you - even if you don't enjoy them directly.

The writing is on the wall

The movie industry is a strange beast. It's getting to a point where cinema, as we know it, is quickly devolving to merely be a showcase for blockbusters, horror and perhaps a few seasonal genre films (i.e. Valentines / Christmas). The other interesting trend I've noticed is that the Disney conglomerate is dipping into anti-ageing their stars or mo-capping their stars into live-action with varying levels of success. Which is good news for the stars of yester-year as they are now able to draw out their career - but  only as long as they can still draw an audience.

Which brings me to the purpose of this post.

I have a sneaking suspicion that it won't be too long till actors will no longer be needed for blockbusters. It seems pretty obvious that we're already at a stage where they're integrating significant fantasy characters using mo-cap e.g. Rocket Racoon / Kong and they've already 'mo-capped' de-aged stars numerous times e.g. Nicole Kidman / Michael Douglas / Kurt Russell / Bruce Willis. So, really, how long until we simply get a mo-cap to play the role of Michael Douglas instead? How long until an actor simply farms out a 3D scan and voice profile to movie producers? It sounds far-fetched but I truly doubt movie execs haven't already mapped out this unnatural progression. We're already at a stage where we have trained AI to (ironically) make us do the robot or generate fake faces or simulate Ellen DeGeneres' voice or even lip-sync former US presidents.

It certainly seems clear to me that it may be time to dust off your civvies and go back to carpentry, chicken suits and chilis.

 Update: Needless to say, it shouldn't come as a surprise that I'm a soothsayer. James Dean is in the process of making an impromptu comeback.

For technology's sake

Sometimes I wonder whether they thought things through. Or maybe I wonder if there's some other agenda in play. For privacy (as per Snowden) he recommends physically disabling the camera/mike in your phone and using a wired headphone instead - which may explain things. All I know is that wireless headphones don't work for games. I bought 'low-latency' Bluetooth headphones recently and I can say it's great at audio and great at battery life but terrible at latency. Perhaps it's Android but I get around a one-second lag between the sound and action in games.

Let's all let out a resounding 'ugh' in response.

That's not to say that they can't 'hack it' by artificially buffering the video inline with the audio lag in (e.g.) YouTube but, in the end, it's still a hack. The wired simply is superior and that just annoys me. It has taken LCD screens about 30 years to be on the cusp of breaking even with the visual fidelity of CRT technology which ain't great. It's the same story for WiFi - you get about 40% of the performance of wired - but only as long as you camp your butt on top of the router.

In conclusion, all this technology just proves to old codgers like me that we had it better in the good old days - and it ain't due to rose-coloured glasses tainting my view. As good old Joe Friday stated:

And that's what I live by.

Jonesing for a new iPhone

... or as an alternate heading:

Now before you think this could possibly be about me, for shame. I would never shackle my wrists within the confines of an iPhone but, rather, I thought I would provide a little commentary on why my staunch iPhone-loving girlfriend has decided to turn toward the light and decide not to get a new Apple product. 

For those of you able to follow my train of thought so far, yes, you are correct; it's all about the Benjamins (yo). She presently owns a paleolithic iPhone 6 and wanted to move to the last model with a headphone jack, which turns out to be the iPhone 8. Note that said iPhone 8 is now two generations out-of-date and is already viewed by most as obsolete - and yet Apple still thinks that they should be charging around $700 for the privilege. Say what now? How does that compute? You would think that they would be doing a little more (considering a quickly receding market share through a complete lack of innovation or respect for their fanatical supporters) to retain your patronage. Retrospectively who thought it was a good idea to charge over a grand for the latest incarnation - and still think it would be successful?

Needless to say my GF's not in a position to throw down a gorilla on her replacement and so has been cajoled into giving android a go - all for $280 for kick-ass hardware (well, by Android standards) and she also gets to keep her old phone for things like facetime and (shudder) iTunes. I think I can make a case for her complete conversion such that perhaps she won't go back to overpriced hardware for her next upgrade.

I guess the conclusion that I really should put forward is not that she saved over $300 on a comparable smart phone experience but rather why she's paying almost $300 on a device which will inevitably be made obsolete. I sometimes long for a time when smart phones were not a thing; where we no longer chase the next iteration of what is basically the same dang thing. Honestly who needs a folding phone? All we are doing is simply moving the target - in the end we will never get to that finish line if we keep our focus on what isn't really all that important. Sometimes the best thing we can do is not play the game at all and be content in living our lives amongst our friends and family.

Ideas do have a cost

I have just came to the realisation that unpopular ideas will never start wars nor overthrow governments nor result in anything of any significance without at least some form of support. Which is why Trump's wall will never be built in its presently-proposed state. It is one thing to have the cockamamie idea of walling yourself up from your neighbouring countries, it's another to get the support to bring that to fruition. As Donald Drumpf should have hopefully realised, it's not enough to want something to happen - especially if that plans turns out to be unpopular.

In comparison, we have Elon Musk, a strange, enigmatic man who has somehow been able to to get grown-ups to believe in dancing electric cars, racing snails and going to mars. Most of us would probably admit that we also had crazy hopes and dreams when we were children but that they were set aside when less sexy things like earning a living took priority. And yet, despite all of these responsibilities we still put our hard-earned money towards his fanciful dreams. How is it that building a measly wall gets a hard no but racing a snail does?

Perhaps it's not so much whether the idea is crazy but whether you have the ability to get other people to metaphorically and physically invest in that same idea. I guess where building a wall falls down is in its tone. At its core it is symbolic of fear, bigotry and hatred whereas the ideas that Musk puts forward are at its essence messages of hope and for the benefit of mankind. I think Trump would find far more success if he were to reframe his hope for funding as one designed to enable those wishing to immigrate a more streamlined experience and perhaps putting in stronger countermeasures to vet those with more nefarious intentions. But, as the statistics have clearly stated, most Mexicans are not drug-dealers, murderers or rapists and the sooner that Trump reframes his message as such, the sooner he will get his funding. In a nutshell, you should simply ask yourself what can I do to help those around me? And perhaps you'd get a far better response

Orwells that ends well

In the eternal struggle to construct an ever-lighter cloth for the emperor we have lost track of more important issues. Case in point: a teacher is fired merely for choosing not to use the reappropriated pronoun a student chooses to identify with. Then there was the tiny wrinkle where legislation was passed to criminalise the misuse of pronouns in Canada. I personally think English is hard enough as it is; French even harder. It tickles my brain just a little to think that French may have to (e.g.) become gender-neutral for cars which choose not to identify as female (you should note that all objects have an associated gender in French).

Would you believe that in the continuing desire to be inclusive of all minorities we will soon need to learn imaginary gender-neutral pronouns like zim, zir, zie (Peterson is my hero btw). It seems a little totalitarian but, really, it is completely totalitarian - especially if it's legislated. The powers that be are moving us all towards a society which polices ourselves through fear of being ostracised for being misogynist, homophobic, ageist or unwilling-to-toe-the-lineist etc. It's all getting a bit silly, really. How long will it be until we extend this legislation to include Pastafarians who request we use either under-cooked or al dente as their preferred pronoun? 

Personally I wouldn't mind if our society has evolved to such an extent that this is our most-pressing issue. But it isn't. It seems our society is immunised toward gun violence, the impending climate collapse, the need to feed our burgeoning society and the laissez faire approach to fossil fuel regulation. Maybe our energies would best be served covering our, you know, desire to remain in existence upon this planet rather than focussing our efforts merely on language. Just maybe?

Hardy Har Har

The latest Magnum Opus from Rockstar: Red Dead Redemption 2 (The redemptioning) has just been released ... and I'm not impressed. Yes, it's large; yes, it's pretty; but from all I've seen it looks to be just one giant slog.

I had that same experience with Shadow of Mordor and, coincidentally, the initial RDR. At the point where we've played the full range of mini-games is the point where the game should end - except they do not. Nothing is gained by drawing out your game time by a factor of 2,3 ... or even 10 in RDR2's case. The reason I no longer play Assassin's Creed games is simply because I don't enjoy the grind. I enjoyed the first game ... but subsequent sequels just doubled down on bloat and collect-a-thons and a completely nonsensical story-line.

For all the reverie directed toward RDR2's polish, I can still say that the gameplay remains steadfastly last-gen. Let me say that again: the fundamental game remains exactly the same. There are exactly zero advancements to this new sequel and exactly zero challenge to the dumb-as-something-really-quite-dumb adversaries. The way Rockstar ramps up the difficulty is simply to throw a bunch more goons in your direction. You don't even need to take cover as you have insta-heal items and insta-fill dead-eye meter potions. For those of you unfamiliar, Dead-eye is a cheat-mode built into the game. When initiated it puts everything in slow-motion while you paint multiple targets with red crosses before you mow them down with zero challenge.

But the fans of this series would say that 'It's about the story' and, apparently, this may be its only saving grace. In the classic world of sequels this one unsurprisingly turns out to be a prequel, with the main story arc focussing on the origin for one of the core characters from the first RDR. But that isn't a good enough reason to play through. The problem lies in the need to have an open world but also have a tightly-governed story. I think Shadow of Mordor did a far better job of building an organic story with its Nemesis system which chronicled the rise-and-fall of your adversaries as you either killed their leaders or were killed in the process. The problem with RDR2 is that for its story missions there is only one way it can play out. You will end in a 'try again' screen if you deviate even slightly from what the story scripted. It reminds me of those canned FMV games where there is only one path through it. Yes, you may have a little more freedom now but it does still boil down to the same thing.

And that's, really, the problem I have with Rockstar games. Here are the fundamentals of what they prioritise (e.g. GTA 4/5, RDR1/2):

• Realistic reproduction of world locales
• Realistic depiction of characters
• Strongly curated story path
• Realistic side missions
• Realistic/accurate music
• Realistic voice acting 
• Realistic excuses for collecting various items (collect-a-thons)
• Overly-long game time
• Overly-repetitive missions
• Overly-serious tone
• Bringing the movie feel to a game

Note that fun is not on that list. They are more focussed on realism and film-making (yes, really) than actually providing a good experience. In my opinion, the last fun game was Grand Theft Auto Vice City which had the best soundtrack, played up the 80's era and had a bunch of fun lampooning classic movie scenes from that era. There was still a story (with some great actors) but it was overshadowed first-and-foremost by an overall sense of fun. Somewhere along the line the game producers lost sight of why we play games in the first place. At this point Rockstar should just rip the band-aid off and start creating movies because they sure as heck aren't creating games anymore.