I've tried a lot of things, but I played hockey for about 10 years and I skied a bunch in college (before that too, but not much in the way of formal training until college). I've been playing a bunch of soccer over the past few years but only pickup games.
I do want to get back into hockey though. I'd just have to rebuy a lot of the equipment (hockey has a shit load of gear) and the decent leagues for my age group would be a big commute.
If it makes you feel any better, I'm sure QTE's, basic hack & slashers, and afterthought platforming would have come around without GoW's help :P
Anyway, I doubt I'll ever buy another GoW game (certainly not full price) but I do have a soft spot for the puzzles. They're not even particularly clever puzzles but Santa Monica has a knack for creating annoying characters and then promptly using them as sacrificial lambs. Even beyond that, I like turning really big switches and gears and I don't why.
The thing is, there are real wardens that are evil bastards and there are real people in prison that are innocent. It's not an unrealistic story or a struggle that is trivial, it wasn't supposed to be a contrast either between a protagonist and an antagonist. It was Andy's story, it wasn't good guy bad guy, it was Andy Dufraine gets screwed over as badly as possible because his wife was also murdered. He didn't get ultimate revenge, his wife was still not alive and he never confronted the murderer. The point of the warden in the story was that Andy was falsely convicted and on top of that he is exploited by the warden and abused by the prisoners.
There are also real wardens who are great people and real prisoners who are as guilty as it gets. Either could have been realistic if that was the aim, but the writers chose to make an amiable prisoner and a despicable warden because it's an easy hook. People want to root for a good guy and jeer a bad guy. If the filmmakers didn't want such a relationship between Andy and the warden, they wouldn't have played up how evil the warden was.
Again, I'm not saying I hate the movie or anything. I'm just saying it's not one of my favorites.
Well, I'll watch some of it every now and then when it's on TV. It knows the right emotional buttons to push so it winds up being rewarding in that way.
Still, I think the reason why I never really adored the movie like a lot of other people do is that it's so transparent in that it is pushing those emotional buttons. The protagonists aren't really going up against other humans who simply have competing interests; they're going up against pure evil. Then the main character triumphs, but the film kind of glosses over exactly how he does so it doesn't feel true to his experience. Like it wasn't just him putting up with all the crap people were throwing at him; it was also a crazy amount of tedium and hard work.
But again, it does have that emotional hook and I understand why a lot of people like it.
Been a while since I seen this but, wasn't he working for and getting special treatment for helping the governor fellow do his books? And when he was getting gang raped, didn't the warden fellow have his guards sort out the thugs?
That give and take mentality seems pretty human to me. Likewise as well, prisons at the time, where corrupted I wouldn't exactly call it an unrealistic depiction.
The warden keeps him living a good prison life (much different than a good life) to motivate him to cook his books. However, he'll do anything to keep him there making him money and at one point he has a man murdered to stop him from clearing the protagonist's name. Not only that, the warden also wants him to know that he is his servant. He could have a lot of people shine his shoes but he takes special care to make the protagonist do it and the warden also throws him in solitary when the main character mentions not wanting to commit crimes for him anymore.
He was decidedly evil. It definitely works but it felt transparent to me.
Transparent in what way? You saw through it......? Transparent is a word used when someone is pretending but you can see through the act, the warden was a selfish evil man and exploited the fact that he had an incredibly intelligent accountant as a prisoner. Just don't see how the word can apply.
I'm using the meaning "easy to see or detect" (link, the first group that came up in google).
It feels like an easy emotional button to push. Of course we want to see the good guy prevail and the super evil guy get what's coming to him. Obviously there are no rules in art, but such a black and white contrast wasn't fully satisfying to me in this case.
Well, I'll watch some of it every now and then when it's on TV. It knows the right emotional buttons to push so it winds up being rewarding in that way.
Still, I think the reason why I never really adored the movie like a lot of other people do is that it's so transparent in that it is pushing those emotional buttons. The protagonists aren't really going up against other humans who simply have competing interests; they're going up against pure evil. Then the main character triumphs, but the film kind of glosses over exactly how he does so it doesn't feel true to his experience. Like it wasn't just him putting up with all the crap people were throwing at him; it was also a crazy amount of tedium and hard work.
But again, it does have that emotional hook and I understand why a lot of people like it.
Been a while since I seen this but, wasn't he working for and getting special treatment for helping the governor fellow do his books? And when he was getting gang raped, didn't the warden fellow have his guards sort out the thugs?
That give and take mentality seems pretty human to me. Likewise as well, prisons at the time, where corrupted I wouldn't exactly call it an unrealistic depiction.
The warden keeps him living a good prison life (much different than a good life) to motivate him to cook his books. However, he'll do anything to keep him there making him money and at one point he has a man murdered to stop him from clearing the protagonist's name. Not only that, the warden also wants him to know that he is his servant. He could have a lot of people shine his shoes but he takes special care to make the protagonist do it and the warden also throws him in solitary when the main character mentions not wanting to commit crimes for him anymore.
He was decidedly evil. It definitely works but it felt transparent to me.
I'll probably replay it if it's a crossbuy because the parts where it works are pretty awesome. I won't rebuy it though because I didn't like a lot of the levels.
Well, I'll watch some of it every now and then when it's on TV. It knows the right emotional buttons to push so it winds up being rewarding in that way.
Still, I think the reason why I never really adored the movie like a lot of other people do is that it's so transparent in that it is pushing those emotional buttons. The protagonists aren't really going up against other humans who simply have competing interests; they're going up against pure evil. Then the main character triumphs, but the film kind of glosses over exactly how he does so it doesn't feel true to his experience. Like it wasn't just him putting up with all the crap people were throwing at him; it was also a crazy amount of tedium and hard work.
But again, it does have that emotional hook and I understand why a lot of people like it.
I picked up a pizza from the gas station. This is pretty much the best gas station pizza ever though. They have a brick oven and they use boar's head toppings.
Log in to comment