How to motivate more miniseries?

On the local television there was just a rerun of the miniseries The Lost Room. This time I only saw the last of the six one hour episodes, but the feeling was the same as on the first time around: it was an entertaining ride of imagination although the ending wasn't really that satisfying. Nevertheless, it made me once again think that it would be nice to have more short series like this on television, which entertainmentwise is mostly dominated by longer series and movies. Could it be possible to get more miniseries?

Miniseries are in many ways an intermediate form between regular continuous television series and movies, and as such they also have their own specific perks. Miniseries can tell longer stories than single movies. On the other hand the viewer knows that the series is set to have an ending, and the overall structure is likely to be more coherent than in a regular long-running series. It is true that a more regular series may also have a predefined ending and sometimes the final timespan of the series may be revealed quite early, like in the case of Lost. But even so, series like this are prone to either wither away and end up being much worse than they were in the beginning (like with Prison Break) or experience a relatively sudden and thus at least somewhat unsatisfying ending : for example 24 ended practically in just a couple of minutes, even though the whole series had lasted for 192 episodes or about 140 hours!

There have been really few miniseries lately. Even The Lost Room might have actually been a long pilot to a regular series, if it had been successful enough. And that might be the reason why the ending left the viewer hoping for more - and also the reason why the series is going continue its life in comic book format in 2011.

It is of course understandable why producers aren't that motivated by miniseries. Businesswise movies are better since they offer the money from the theatre distribution. Regular series are better since once the very basic setting has been constructed and a sufficient fan base has been reached, there is much less need to invest in the production or to market the series. If the series becomes a success, it doesn't matter that much even if the actors' salaries start skyrocketing.

So how to motivate producers to make miniseries? That's a difficult question. I believe there's more demand for them than there is supply, but the economically superior characteristics of movies and regular series are hard to overcome. There have been a few Finnish entirely fictional and quite good miniseries in the past few years - including one with a rather unique way of storytelling on this scale. However, apart from the (open-ended) Lost Room the only English miniseries I currently recall have been somehow related to history and/or actual events like the Tsunami, Angels in America, Band of Brothers. So I suppose there has to be an existing serious public interest in a specific theme that specifically fits in the miniseries format or otherwise there an idea will either turn into a movie or a television series or alternatively just be forgotten?

I think it's a pity really.

Click here for the full story >>

A Classic Crossover

I wrote about game remakes and the ambiguity of the remake definition a week ago. Well, this year the flash game scene was hit by a rather peculiar remake, which defies definition in its own special way: The Super Mario Bros. Crossover - by a guy who calls himself Exploding Rabbit. The game takes one of the most classic games, the original Super Mario Bros., and adds several other classic NES characters as playable characters - all with their reimplemented original control schemes.

The game's been around since April, but it's still a work in progress: in June Ryu Hayabusa from Ninja Gaiden / Shadow Warrior made his entry to the game, and just a few days ago, a new character Sophia the 3rd from Blaster Master was added :


Even if the game didn't persuade into playing it more than what it takes to try out the characters, it is definitely a refreshing breeze of nostalgy that also pays respect to the old classics. It also makes you wonder about possibilities for similar simple crossover games. Crossovers of the 16-bit era? Crossovers with multiplayer functionality?

Moreover, it would be interesting to see something entirely new instead of just remaking different things into one game. So would it make sense to do the same thing to classic games, as what Shrek did to classic fairy tales or what Roger Rabbit did to classic animation? By this, I mean something more than a game like Super Smash Bros. and its sequels, which just basically put all classic Nintendo characters on a battle field.

Games are not as good a media as animation for telling jokes, but with a passion for older games and if truly well implemented, there could be a possibility for a commercial hit that combines a tongue-in-cheek story with a working gameplay and scenes that introduce classic characters and their original game elements in a jaw-droppingly innovative fashion. The main character should be, like in Shrek, an entirely new character. Gameplay could be mostly in 3rd person view, and the story for example alike to Who framed Roger Rabbit?: a whodunit story, where the main character has to enter the world of games to solve the mystery. To make the game, all one would need is a company with the rights to lots of old game characters (eg. Nintendo), some collaboration to get lots of additional characters in, a good script that takes gameplay properly into account and a devoted crew.

Click here for the full story >>

Rare Exports - A gem as a short film

I went to see the Rare Exports movie two weeks ago at the cinema. The movie was pretty much as expected, yet perhaps a slight disappointment. Here's a short spoiler-free review of it.

One thing is for sure, this is definitely a different christmas story, which it has to be given a big credit for. It also has a nice atmosphere at parts and some funny bits with a piquant sense of black humour. Yet it even with its dark tones, it doesn't kill the christmas spirit, which is a good thing if you ask me. Nevertheless, it has to be admitted, that in some aspects it felt even a bit too simple: there were story elements that were hastily passed by and could have been developed further, the dialogue felt clumsy at parts, and I was hoping for a better feeling of that special christmas magic. But even with its shortcomings, it never felt dull.

Even though Rare Exports - A Christmas Tale doesn't quite catch the utter brilliance of the original short movies from 2003 and 2005 (first one shown below), I do highly recommend checking it out!

Click here for the full story >>

Game remakes - a growing trend?

There have been quite a few movie and television series remakes and franchise reboots lately. However in the gaming world there have been either few or very few game remakes so far - depending on how strictly a game remake is defined. But as classics grow old, it creates a twofold opportunity for game makers: to introduce a new generation to an old classic, and on the other hand to offer the old gamers a weird sense of nostalgia that arises from the familiar concept combined with improved technology and bigger budgets.

How do remakes differ from sequels, reboots, clones and ports?

In the movie industry the definition of a remake is not entirely clear-cut. In a way the most undisputable remakes might be the Psycho from 1998 or Michael Haneke's self-made English remake of Funny Games among a few others that have been reshot shot-for-shot. Many criticize the point of just remaking everything scene by scene, and accordingly these kinds of examples are very rare. But then there are those movies that have different names than the original, but might share the entire plot or just some part of the premise with the original that inspired the new movie (eg. Four brothers). Their existence results in the definition of a remake becoming much more controversial.

However, in the gaming industry it's even more complicated. Games are ported to different systems, and in the process graphical updates and some features might be added. New versions of games may be published that may have some features of an update, some features of a remake and some features of a sequel. And then there are collections, which combine several older games, either in their original or remastered form, or both. All this can be seen eg. from the wikipedia list, which currently lists some games that I would rather consider sequels, ports or updates - whereas on the other hand the list currently seems to be missing the Ultima remake from 1986.

So how would I define a remake as compared to other non-original games? I think it's quite simple in the end:

1. it has to be made from scratch in the sense that it doesn't take any code from the original directly.
   
2. it has to take something essential directly from the original.

For more complex games the point 2 might be the plot of the game along with the game genre. For very simple older games like the lode runner, it may be harder to distinguish between sequels, clones and remakes. Perhaps the "essential" part in these cases is the level design. If it shares the name, characters or something similar, but doesn't share the levels, it's a sequel. If it tries to deviate from the original in other ways besides just taking the basic premise, then it might be a clone (like bomberman clones). If the levels are the same as in the old one, then it's a remake. Still, even with the old levels, it might feel like just a pointless technical upgrade in the same fashion as a shot-by-shot movie remake. On the other hand in case this upgrade includes a transition from 2D to 3D, the remake may be significant - which of course may be either for better or for worse.

An era of new kinds of remakes?

So does it really matter whether a game is a remake or just something similar? Probably not. Nevertheless, the nature of remakes in gaming might be gaining more resemblance with movie remakes in the near future. So far the emphasis in remakes has been mostly on a technical upgrade, but that is bound to change sooner or later. Artistic perspectives may become more significant as more complicated games, where plot actually plays a significant role, are being remade. This is the true also for a bit older role playing games like in the remake of Final Fantasy 4.

One game that was released one month ago also matches to these terms. In addition, it might actually be unique in a certain sense: as far as I know, it is the only remake that is based on a game that was directly based on a single movie. It may be no wonder that the movie itself is part of a franchise that has been rebooted more times than perhaps any other franchise. The franchise in question is of course Bond, James Bond, and the game that was remade was the excellent FPS game from 1997, GoldenEye:

Since the gaming industry is still much less mature compared to the movie industry, a remake is typically expected to be better than the original - which is often vice versa in the movie industry. This might be true for the new GoldenEye as well, even with the original being the huge hit it was 13 years ago. But as games are especially nowadays much more time-consuming than movies, a game remake perhaps also should deliver a much more substantial sense of novelty to keep the gamer interested.

So how does eg. GoldenEye deliver? It has received relatively good reviews, but as the standards are much higher nowadays, the ratings are still significantly lower than what the original received. So if one feels that the original was better, is it just a feel of nostalgy or might there be something eg. in the game mechanics that makes the new GoldenEye inferior? I haven't tried the new one, but I have certain suppositions about it - both negative and positive.

If you feel differently about remakes in general or if you have opinions about either of the GoldenEye games, feel free to comment!

Click here for the full story >>

Maturing forms of entertainment

There are countless forms of entertainment in the world. As times change, some new ones emerge, some transform to something very different than what they used to be, some gain more popularity and some may wither away or even practically disappear.

Usually the older an entertainment form is, the more mature it is. Theatre hasn't changed much in a long time, and the same thing applies to books, even though it's a significantly younger form of entertainment. The stories of course usually represent the contemporary age, if not in terms of story, then in terms of ideas, style and other details. Nevertheless, the underlying structures in these remain pretty much the same.

The most major element of what people understand as entertainment has perhaps been television for many decades - especially during the latter half of the 20th century. Of course what we see on television can be divided into several categories, and accordingly separate forms of entertainment. There are movies and television series, which are obviously entertainment, but then there are also news and other kinds of educating programs, which often also have an entertainment aspect to them - which is why they are sometimes called infotainment.

From what we can see on TV, movies can in my opinion be considered a quite mature form of entertainment, as I don't think the latest boom in 3D movies much changes the essential experience. Developed technologies are certainly part of the evolution, but it seems like the path of making ever more impressive digital effects seems to be close to an end too. Remakes of old classics (such as the currently running new Nightmare on Elm Street) and of even not so well-known older movies can also be seen as an evidence of the maturity.

Television series differ from movies, but one could still argue that the same thing could be said about them too: technology and techniques have improved, but the underlying structures stay the same. For example, here is the classic introduction of the original Outer limits from the early 1960's:

And here is the newer Outer limits series introduction from the late 90's:

Both series tell short, mostly independent sci-fi stories, even though the themes changed as the world around changed. In the ca. 35 years between the two series there had been progress in not only the technology but also in terms of production techniques, so already based on this it can be stated that the form was not mature 50 years ago. And by the way, as the world still has changed in the last decade, I wouldn't mind a new installment to the series - perhaps motivated by the emergence of 3D televisions combined with the introductory line "we will control all that you see and hear".

But how about now? Television series are a younger form of entertainment than movies, so are television series accordingly also less mature than movies? I would say yes. One cause for bigger changes in television series might be that movies have had large budgets for a long time but I have the impression that television series' budgets have lately enlarged significantly. From the viewer point of view on the other hand there has been a shift to more complex long-term storylines that expand through episodes and even seasons - even if the show isn't a soap opera. One example of this is comparing MacGyver to its 21st century semi-equivalent, Michael Scofield from Prison Break. Another even more obvious change is of course the emergence of reality television. Reality is here to stay, the only question is which particular shows or what types of shows remain the biggest hits in the long run. I bet they don't try to fool the contestants though, like in There's something about Miriam.

Television however, although still a powerful media, has started losing its throne to entertainment related to computers. A lot can be done with computers from personal videos to games and various forms of social media, and this diversity further ambiguates what is understood as entertainment. In any case, in terms of computers, what is most clearly defined as entertainment, is of course computer and console games.

Since development in the gaming industry has been so intimately related to the progress in computational power - which itself has been extremely rapid - and to learning to take full advantage of these capabilities, games are still prone to huge changes. Another factor that will be causing changes in the near future is entirely human: as video games are a very young form of entertainment, so are its consumers mostly young. As the first generations of gamers are getting older, there will probably an increasing demand for different kinds of games.

What the future in gaming holds for us, is indeed an interesting question. We know how huge projects video games nowadays are and how impressive they can be at their best. When playing modern games, it's worthwhile to think how much progress has already happened. After all, this is how simple a very famous computer game looked like less than 40 years ago:

Click here for the full story >>

Evolution in entertainment

Ever since the Darwin days, the concept of evolution has been primarily defined as the process which transforms species through successive generations by natural selection. However, it is used in other contexts as well, some of which may have at least partially been adopted from this biological evolution. One example of this is the concept of cultural evolution.

Cultural evolution is of course in many ways very different from biological evolution. It does not implement a fully applicable equivalent to natural selection - although due to various factors related to cultural evolution the idea of survival of the fittest no longer fully applies to natural selection in biological evolution either. Another difference that some earlier claimed to exist was that cultural evolution would always be towards increasing complexity, whereas the biological evolution would not be. Complexity is of course a very vague term, but regardless of its precise definition the truth is that neither type of evolution necessarily has a specific direction

There is one thing that in my opinion most clearly distinguishes cultural evolution from its biological sibling. Whereas biological evolution in case of humans is basically the change in what is known as a human being, cultural evolution can be interpreted in two ways. The first one is similar to the biological counterpart, namely how cultural factors like knowledge and habits change a human being compared to a theoretical human, who would have grown entirely in a culture-free environment. The second one is how culture itself evolves, which does not have a counterpart in biological evolution. As such, culture can be regarded as an entity that was born when cultural evolution began, which might have been millions of years ago, even before homo sapiens. Another view on this "entity" is to consider only the more tangible recorded history, which is less than 10 000 years old.

The entertainment entity is not only evolving, it's growing too!

Culture evolves, and as the standard of living is constantly improving, entertainment is taking an ever-growing part in this. Entertainment, when viewed as an entity, is of course significantly younger than its holonym, the "culture entity". Entertainment in some form has probably existed for at least tens of thousands of years, whereas the recorded history of entertainment seems to have started less than 5000 years ago. And to continue with the rounded figures, if the "entertainment entity" would only include products of entertainment that still exist in their original form, the entity would perhaps be no older than 1000 years. This youngest, most concrete view on the "entity" is especially interesting in the modern world, as the mass of tangible representations of entertainment is growing very rapidly and most forms of this kind of entertainment are so easily available.

The idea of this blog is to examine entertainment in general, although the emphasis will most likely be on its most modern forms. The intention is to review and comment on some individual items of entertainment, to make notes about new entertainment-related phenomena and to also ponder where entertainment is heading as a cultural entity.

Click here for the full story >>