Mass Effect 3: The Ending

Much has already been said about the ending to the video game Mass Effect 3, an action-RPG know for it's attention to story, character, and "hard science fiction"-- a sub-genre that emphasizes technical detail and scientific accuracy. Most are quick to point out the plot holes, character inconsistencies, departure from established themes, vague (if any) resolution, and lack of meaningful choice (the core concept that drives the gameplay). Some say that fans deserve a more fitting conclusion to the series that they've supported for almost five years. The other side argues that (developer) BioWare should stand by the artistic integrity of their team and the game they've created. Some fans have crafted a theory that discredits the final events in the game. Even business giant Forbes weighed in on the controversial conclusion. But all these points are specific to Mass Effect alone. I've yet to see anyone analyze the ending as an effective means of storytelling on a basic level. That is, until now. Spoilers? You bet!

For those who might be unfamiliar with it, above is a basic diagram of the dramatic structure. And at first glance, Mass Effect 3 seems to line up nicely. There's a good setup in the exposition, plenty of rising action as more conflicts and obstacles pile on top of each other, a thrilling climax in the final confrontation with The Illusive Man, and . . . that's where most fans are lost. But regardless of how you feel about the Catalyst, it does wrap up the remaining conflicts, the purpose of the falling action. And, yes, the resolution is a bit vague, but it makes its overall point: at great personal cost, Commander Shepard defeats the Reapers, saving the galaxy from the Cycle. Banner headline: YOU WIN! So it's all good, right?


Well, let's dig a little deeper.


Most stories are broken up into three acts (notable exceptions: tv shows and Shakespeare's plays use a five act structure). Act One contains the exposition, Act Two the rising action, and Act Three the climax, falling action, and resolution. Screenwriter and author of Save the Cat Blake Snyder describes this structure as Thesis - Antithesis - Synthesis. Act One, the Thesis, sets up the world as we know it. Whether it's ancient Egypt, modern-day America, or a long time ago in a galaxy far, far away, it establishes the known world of the story and the rules there-in. Act Two, the Antithesis, is the upside-down world or the bizzarro world. The known rules no longer apply. Moses is banished into the desert. Neo is out of the Matrix. Luke discovers Yoda. Act Three, Synthesis, the hero takes what they've learned in Act's One and Two, and uses that to create a third new world. Moses leads his people out of Egypt. Neo controls the Matrix. Luke saves his father from the Dark Side. This structure seems to follow Joseph Campbell's "Hero's Journey" quite well. Let's take a look at Mass Effect 3 using this structure, first as a stand-alone story, then as part of a trilogy.

You might be thinking that it fits this structure, especially the ending. After all, it's called Synthesis, and "synthesis" is one of the final choices in the game. In fact, the game even suggests that this is the best choice to make. But is the ending a true synthesis in the way that Snyder and the three act structure mean it, as a combination of thesis and antithesis?


In Mass Effect 3, the first act is the events leading to and immediately following the initial Reaper invasion. It establishes a thesis world of impending doom. The galaxy is divided. Old grudges (Krogan and Salarian/Turian) prevent cooperation. And those most able (Asari) are unwilling to help. The second act, the antithesis or upside-down world, shows those divides beginning to break. With every completed mission, more peoples are flocking to your call. Century old differences are put aside or even resolved! Hope, however small, is kindled. So how does the third act wrap it up; what's the third synthesis world that you create? After doing the impossible and amassing the largest interstellar force in the galaxy, Commander Shepard alone decides between three choices, some of which sacrifice your new found allies, all of which sacrifice the unity you're created heretofore. Some of the minor details are forgivable; a story that involves choice and user-interaction will always involve decisions that are morally questionable. But it's the destruction of the Mass Relays (the one element of the ending that no choice can avoid) that undoes the effects of all your previous efforts. Without them, the galaxy is once again divided, each race is isolated, and all peoples must look to their own survival.


This isn't synthesis. This is Prethesis. This effectively undoes everything previously established by the story. It hits the reset button and demands a fresh start oblivious to the lessons learned in order to get to this point. It's the same when you look at the series as a whole.


Mass Effect 1 establishes a thesis world of a large, galactic community with complex issues and political pitfalls. We learn that this community is under threat of Reaper invasion, and thus, annihilation. Mass Effect 2 gives us the antithesis, the upside-down world where Shepard breaks into unknown territory, exemplified by the new location of the Terminus Systems and by working for Cerberus. But Mass Effect 3 doesn't give us a synthesis world where Shepard uses his newfound freedom to get the job done and save the galactic community. No, instead Shepard is forced back into his/her old job and effectively destroys the galactic community you were fighting for. When you look at it this way, is the banner headline still: YOU WIN?


There's been plenty of nitpicking regarding this ending, and there will continue to be, but the ultimate failure is that at the most critical moment Mass Effect 3 could not engage its audience in any meaningful way. It's just bad storytelling. Granted, the forthcoming "Extended Cut" could potentially change everything. But the unfortunate truth is that Mass Effect, one of the most important series in story-driven video games, will forever be remembered for its bad ending.

Now, to throw a little salt on the wound, imagine that this whole mess could have been avoided with just a little bit of peer review.

But what do you think? Were you satisfied with the conclusion? Are you excited for the Extended Cut? Do you think the fans are whining or entitled?

The Avengers

Okay, this isn't going to be so much of a review as much as me just nerding out about how awesome it is. My actual review is simple: go see it, it's awesome! If you've already seen it, go see it again because you probably didn't notice all the awesome that it has! Seriously, I love this movie. I'm a fanboy, and this movie went beyond my wildest expectations. If I could marry this movie, I'd be shopping for a ring. Okay, let the nerd-gush begin. There will be spoilers, so you've been warned.

• Isn't it awesome how they made Agent Coulson a fanboy, and that he like represents us in the movie? Like he's our representative in the Avengers. And then it's his death the brings the team together, and it's like a symbolic statement that this movie would not have happened without the fans.
• And did you notice that Cap was all like, "Tony Stark, you're nothing without your suit of armor," and then when Tony confronts Loki he has to do it without the armor!? HOLY SHIT!
• And then when Hulk takes down the first of those flying-snake-thingies, and Iron Man blows it up, and Cap totally shields Black Widow from the explosion, because that's just like what his character would do! And they don't have to cut to it and like hit you over the head with like, "oh, he's Captain America and he's saving people." NO! This movie's like, "this is so second nature for him, we're not even going to worry about it." THAT'S how much they get these characters.
• Isn't it cool how Loki is so much more evil in this movie than in Thor? He's like ten times as evil! I mean, in Thor all he really did was lie to people and cause some mischief, but now he's whacking people with his spear, ripping out people's eyes, and calling Black Widow a mewling quim.
• And then at the end, the Council dude was like, "Is that was this was all about, a statement?" And Nick Fury is like, "A promise." But what promise is he actually referring to? Is he talking about some oath to protect earth or something, or is it more symbolic of like the promise to the fans that Marvel made at the end of the first Iron Man?
• And it's so sweet how the last shot of the movie-proper is Tony and Pepper in Stark Tower going over the designs to add a Quinjet hanger to the tower, and then the camera pulls back and the only letter left on the building is an 'A' and it looks just like the 'A' in the Avengers logo!

Ladies and gentlemen, all of this is called payoff. Payoff is when a movie establishes something early on and then it comes back at the end in a fulfilling way. This whole movie is payoff. It's four years and five previous films worth of payoff! And this is only a small portion of what makes The Avengers an awesome movie. I highly recommend everyone go see it.

Like right now.

We Need To Talk About Kevin Review

We Need To Talk About Kevin is a movie about two horrible parents and one kid who's way too smart for his own good. And by "smart" I mean manipulative and downright evil. It's dark, disturbing, and tackles some pretty tough issues, but I never really felt invested in what was going on.


The one thing I'll say for Kevin is it's shot almost flawlessly. Anyone would be hard pressed to find a single frame that isn't beautiful in some way in that whole movie. Director Lynne Ramsay clearly knows what she wants in the frame, when to move the camera, and when to hold on for that extra beat. Unfortunately, I feel she was a bit overindulgent in some of the visual motifs. The story goes back and forth between past and present, with the present mostly consisting of the lead character, Eva (Tilda Swinton), cleaning up the red paint used to vandalize her home. But there's plenty more splashes of red in the past, whether it be tomatoes, strawberry jam, more paint, or even blood. About halfway through, I was starting to feel like I was being hit over the head with it. Yes, we understand. Red.


But ultimately, I was just not that interested in the subjected matter of the film. This is a movie about a mom who's completely intimidated by her own child. Granted the kid is batshit evil, but what's he going to do when he's four? Arguably, the entire conflict of the film could have been resolved with a good spanking. I just have trouble sympathizing with an adult character who's being pushed around by a child. You're bigger than him! That means he has to do what you say! If God didn't want us beating our children, then he wouldn't have invented belts (ugh, okay, for those who don't know . . . this is hyperbole).


I guess it just comes down to a matter of respect. I never respected Eva because she's a spineless loser, and I never respected Kevin because, well, he's evil (and not even in the cool Darth Vader sort of way). So I never respected their plight. I kind of feel they deserve what they got because they never took action to assure otherwise.


You might like this movie if you enjoy dark, psychologically disturbing thrillers, or if you're into the whole evil kid thing. But if that's not your idea of a good time, I would skip this one. For a different opinion, check out my friend Jordan's review here.

Batman Arkham City and Why the Masses Are Wrong

Batman is just awesome. After 6 movies and a 70+ year publication history, the masses still can't get enough of him. But it wasn't until 2009 that he got his first great video game treatment in Batman: Arkham Asylum. So its sequel, last year's Batman: Arkham City had a lot to live up to. After somewhat of an extended wait (being poor is no fun) I've finally gotten to spend my due time with this game. Unfortunately, I'm less than impressed.

It appears I am alone in this.

Arkham City is rated 94 on Metacritic. IGN's Greg Miller initially had his reservations, then came up with a whole list of reasons to gush over it, and gave it a 9.5 (out of 10). The whole review kind of reminds me of a little boy trying to convince himself that he likes something because he wants to like it. Kind of like me one summer when I went to see this certain movie. 

Most of my complaints with Arkham City have the theme of "too much." No doubt developer Rocksteady felt the pressure to make this Batman game bigger and better than the last one. Kind of like how they tried to do "too much" with the ending of this certain movie. Arkham City is clearly a big game with a lot going on, just not that much worth doing. Too many villains that aren't fleshed out, too many unmotivated side-quests, and far too many on-screen prompts.

I think I first noticed this pattern while playing the combat portions of the game. In its predecessor, combat is simple, fluid, and awesome. In this game, however, I feel they tried to add too many options. Every gadget the Dark Knight wields has a hotkey (or rather, hotkey combo) for use in combat. That's no fewer than half a dozen combos to memorize, and it only gets worse as you upgrade your abilities. What was once simple and fluid is now clunky and complicated. One could argue that you can just stick to the basics, and indeed you can...until the game drops a mini-boss or lieutenant into the fray. They have to be taken out in specific ways, so I hope you remember which combo is the Remote Electrical Charger.

Maybe I'm remembering the original game through rose colored glass, but I just don't recall these problems existing in the first game. I was free to handle all confrontations short of a boss fight any way I wanted. As long as I didn't get shot in the face, I had a good chance of succeeding. Because I was Batman. Now, Batman has to do what the game wants.

A good example of this is the Mr. Freeze fight. This battle is so convoluted that the game actually stops so that the "bat-computer" can give you a strategy guide specific to this fight alone. In the last game, you only needed to know three things: X was punch, Y was counter, and A was everything else. Those three face-buttons allowed you to engage everyone and everything, from 20+ thugs to Gotham's most dangers super-villains. And it was always cool and unique. Because you were Batman. And Batman kicks ass.

Another aspect I didn't care for was the open-world gaming. Now, I've never liked open-world games, and I realize that a lot of gamers do, so I won't harp on this too much. It's just that the game is so big, with so much to do, but I finished the story in less than two days, and everything after that seems kind of pointless. Side-quests are often unrelated to the story or the characters, so I feel no motivation to go back and finish them. That, and I'm disappointed the developers went this rout after the great hub-world of Arkham Asylum.

There are also a few thematic choices, things relating the the continuity of Batman, that I don't quite get. First and foremost, how Batman clearly murders Solomon Grundy (oh, um...spoiler alert). Granted, Grundy is immortal (damn it! again, spoiler alert) and I'm sure he'll be fine, eventually, but it's the principal. Batman does not kill. It's part of who he is, and that includes ripping out the heart of a pseudo zombie...spoiler alert!

Also, Batman's seeming ability to "fly" through Gotham. Okay, he's not really flying; he's gliding and grappling seamlessly, which might as well be flying. I realize the game needed a way for Batman to travel quickly across the huge map, this just doesn't work for me. Batman doesn't fly. He runs along rooftops. I guess that wouldn't allow him to travel quickly enough, but flying is not the answer. Batmobile, anyone?

Then there's this little beauty, the utter uselessness of a "silent takedown," where Batman sneaks up on someone and knocks them out without making a sound. The first rule of being Batman is that you are the night; don't alert your presence to anyone. In Arkham City, many thugs are wearing special heart-moniters that their masterminds are watching. So if you take someone down, no matter how, they know about it. So...what's the point of a silent takedown if everyone knows you're there, anyway? I mean, I'm supposed to be the night, here. Yes, only "certain" thugs have this heart-moniter, but that's virtually every thug you have to get through in the story mode! This would have been cool to make certain encounters more difficult, but it's overuse made one of the games original features, a feature that highlights one of Batman's greatest strengths, completely null and void.

Okay, there are some things I did like about the game. The fight with Ra's al Ghul was pretty badass. In fact, the whole League of Assassins story arc was my favorite part of the game. It was where everything kind of condensed to a point and reminded the player that Batman was awesome, like its predecessor did so many times before. I also liked how the final confrontation with Hugo Strange is not some drown-out boss fight, but a super-tough scenario where you have to use all your bat-tricks to get passed his guards without getting shot in the face. Like most of his rogue gallery, Strange can't really compete with Batman physically; once the Dark Knight gets to him, it's over. But getting to him is always a challenge.

So, after all that, I guess I want to say that I don't think Batman: Arkham City, is a terrible game, just not as good as everyone says it is. Greg Miller might believe that I can't see the forrest for the trees, but it was the details that made the original game so good. Not the super-complex fight mechanics, or the thousands of things Batman could do outside of the main story, but the little things. The things that made you stop and say, "Yeah, Batman is awesome." These moments happened so infrequently in Arkham City that it just doesn't live up to its predecessor. 9.5? I think not.

ShortCuts Podcast #1 (About ShortCuts)

UPDATE: After some changes to their site, I've updated the link to shortcutsla.com so that it actually works now.


ShortCuts is a new podcast from Devin Marble (Syfy’s Fact or Faked: Paranormal Files) and Jordan Bowers (Short Cuts the Blog) where they discuss life in LA, what they’ve learned about the entertainment industry, and their thoughts on the industry in general. With the hopes of being both helpful and entertaining, ShortCuts has a lot to live up to. That said, this first podcast is a great start to what could be an invaluable resource for those looking to “break into the biz.”

Devin is an up-and-comer in the industry with Producer credits that include Project Runway and the independent film The New Republic. Now he works on-screen as a host for Syfy’s Fact or Faked: Paranormal Files.

Jordan is writer with a background in journalism and media and works for a film/TV database company researching features films in development.

The gist of this podcast can be summarized as, How did you get your job out here? As their website says:

There’s nothing worse than listening to an interview with an actor or director who says something along the lines of, “Well, I moved to Hollywood when I was 18 and I got a job at Paramount...” Really? Good for you. What about how that happened? WE WANNA KNOW!

They share their personal stories of how they got where they are today and what qualities they believe helped them achieve their success. It’s very conversational; it doesn’t list 10 steps to getting a job in the industry or anything like that. Nor do they equate success to fame and fortune. They’re talking about what it takes to make rent, to survive in LA while working in what many see as a cutthroat industry. As 

someone who began PA work last year, I can tell you there’s some sage advise here.

The good news is it’s mostly common sense.

In future podcasts, they’ll be bringing in guests speakers who will share their stories, discuss similar topics, as well as promote personal projects. Depending on the success of the podcast, ShortCuts could prove to be a useful platform for the workingman in LA. What I’m most interested in will be whether or not future pods rehash the same themes or if there’s new ideas that they haven’t covered yet.

Whatever the case, this is one to keep your eyes on. These are two guys living and working in the entertainment industry who genuinely want to share their advice with you!

Their first podcast is scheduled to release later today, and you’ll be able to stream or download it by clicking right here.

The Adventures of Tintin Review

DISCLAIMER: I have never read any of the Tintin comic strips. This review is based solely on the film.

The Adventures of Tintin is the story of a young journalist/adventurer and his faithful terrier as they quest for one of the largest sunken pirate treasures in history. Based on the Secret of the Unicorn and Red Rackham's Treasure story arcs from the original comic strip, it was directed by Steven Spielberg and produced by Peter Jackson. It's visually stunning, and it might entertain children between the ages of 4 - 11, but ultimately I found it boring and derivative.

Tintin has a lot of exciting scenes, such as Tintin talking to his dog in the library, and Tintin talking to his dog in his flat. The character of Tintin is about as bland as can be. The boy adventurer has no "save the cat" moment, an event that makes the audience want to follow the character for the rest of the movie, and he is often outsmarted by his dog. Snowy the terrier is really the only smart character in the film; everyone else is portrait with a certain degree of buffoonery. There are several moments where the dog - and therefore, the audience - has figured something out well before the other characters, making the mystery aspects of the story somewhat irrelevant.

The first thing I asked my roommate after we watched the movie was, "What demographic do you think this was made for?" And though he enjoyed the movie as much as I didn't, he immediately admitted my point. Tintin is almost bipolar in it's content, moving from slapstick sight-gags to serious, emotional content with jarring speed. One moment, characters are being comically tossed about on a rolling ship, and the next moment a key character is being fatefully tempted by his alcohol addiction. One scene is nothing but talking heads, the next is a dazzling chase sequence. I just don't know who this movie was made for, kids or adults.

Again, while I've never read the source material, the film has many of the telltale signs of bad screen adaptation. In a comic, it makes sense for the lead character to explain what he's doing as he's doing it. In a movie, it comes off as redundant and boring. I often felt that Tintin only said certain lines because they were in the comic strip.

If there's one thing that can be said for Tintin, it is the quality of its visuals. It's a gorgeous movie, stretching computer generated images to their limits. There were moments when I literally forgot it was an animated movie, it looked so real. But almost too real at times, to the point of being creepy. It makes me wonder, if the goal was to make it look as real as possible, why not shoot it for real? Now, I could write an entire essay on the reliance on special effects, whether or not we should be pushing those limits, and if the medium actually supports the story or not. Ultimately, I never felt like the outstanding visual effects where used for any artistic reason or because they were the best way to make this movie; rather, because Spielberg and Jackson wanted to play with the same technology that made Avatar.

That's just my suspicion, however.

The Adventures of Tintin is a finely crafted money-maker, made to appeal to the lowest common denominator. It's stunning visuals will get most people excited, and it will surely please many "simpler" viewers. But most mature film-goers won't find any real content here.

The Adventures of Tintin releases in theaters this Wednesday.

Retro Review: Funny Face

I don't like musicals.

There. I said it.

I don't like them because, usually, their stories are nothing more than an excuse to get to the next song and dance number. And that's fine if you're into that sort of thing. It's not for me. Usually. And while Funny Face is another notch on my musicals-I-don't-care-for-stick, it did change some things up.

Funny Face tells the story of a young, intellectual woman (the ever-raveshing Audrey Hepburn) who is whisked away into the world of fashion and modeling. Of course, they go to Paris. And Fred Astaire too, and he dances. The musical numbers are decent, but only one or two memorable songs. Besides Audrey, the acting is sub par. However, unlike most musicals where the story is a slave to pushing the musical numbers forward, I found this story actually interesting! It dealt with society, and expectations, and art vs. intellect, and it almost had something to say. But then those pesky musical numbers kept popping up and it was like they were getting in the way. This movie came so close to captivating me, but every time it almost got there, people would break into another song and dance and kill the momentum.

This leads me to beg the question: why did this movie have to be a musical? I mean, seriously! Imagine if Fred and Audrey had to actually deal with their differences instead of just dancing around to make it better. There could have been actual character depth had the characters been given enough time to actually grow before randomly breaking into song. Funny Face came so close to doing something interesting, but its music, the very nature of its genre, held it back. And its music wasn't even that good.

I guess the flip side is, would it's musical numbers have been any better if it didn't have such a worthy story?