RMA: White Ape

No, not the Barsoomian kind:

This kind:

We touched on these simians before when discussing Neanderthals, but we didn't really get into the creatures themselves.

White Ape (from Moldvay):
AC: 6
HD: 4
Move: 120' (40')
Att: 2 claws
Damage: 1d4 each
No. App: 1d6 (2d4)
Save: F2
Morale: 7
Treasure: nil
AL: N

I won't say these creatures are unheard of in games I've played or run, but they aren't run of the mill either. Because of their previously mentioned connection to cave men, I would also lump them in under "Lost World" creatures. They can be found in dungeons and in the wild as wandering monsters (though oddly not on the Lost World encounter table). They also seem to serve as the model for any large primate encounters (gorillas, etc.) as there are no other creatures of this type listed in the BX rulebooks.

As opponents, the apes are a bad time for starting or low level PCs, but not overwhelming. Their rock-throwing (1d6) and 2 claw attacks are dangerous, and 4 HD means you aren't putting one down in a single hit. On the other hand, their AC is pretty tame and they lack any really unusual abilities.

No, the thing I like most about these creatures (apart from the inestimable Mr. Otus' illustration) is that they are a great example of a relatively "normal" animal written up right. Low morale, keeping no treasure, and described as nocturnal vegetarian gatherers who will threaten before attacking. The idea that they have lost their coloration due to subterranean life is an interesting side note, but they are otherwise, well, just apes.

Not every creature has to be utterly mundane or completely fantastic (in the original sense of the word). The white ape is a nice balance between something normal and something just a little exotic.

And I like that.

Movie Review: The Hobbit

"In a hole in the ground, there lived a hobbit."

HELL YEAH!

Mr. Jackson's version of Middle Earth is back in theaters and, like a good little nerd, I went to go see it. I didn't do 3D or 48fps, but see it on the big screen I did. Here are my thoughts on the subject:

(Like my John Carter review, the first part of this is spoiler-free, but honestly now; if you've never read the book or at least seen the animated Rankin-Bass cartoon or you haven't gone to see the film already, you are unique among my tiny readership.)

First of all, let me say I liked it. I liked it nearly as much as I enjoyed it when I first saw Jackson's Fellowship in the theater. Now, I saw FOTR five times in the theater, and I probably won't do that this time (Of course, I didn't have kids back in 2001, so that's a factor in my theater-going record since then.)

Hobbit is Hollywood-ized a bit compared to the books, but then so were the LOTR films. A few liberties were taken with some details, but the overall plot stayed true to the source. I was amused to see what looks like unused or prepared well in advance footage of Bilbo and Frodo (Sir Ian & Mr. Wood) during the prelude. It was a nice touch, I thought.

Martin Freeman does a wonderful job as the younger Bilbo. His flustered Brit is perfect for a Baggins who is swept off his feet and out his door into the wide world beyond. The dwarfs made sincere efforts to distinguish themselves among the throng, but tended to blur together at times. Perhaps by the next film they'll each have had more screen time to establish their personas in our minds.

Cosmetically things worked well. I will say that I would have liked an older-looking Thorin (he was nearly 200 at the end of the book), and a Kili with a real beard (at least a goatee, but STUBBLE? C'mon!)

The biggest issue I've heard about the film is the pacing. A few areas do seem to drag a little. It all comes back to the decision to make it into three films. I too find myself scratching my head at the concept. There simply isn't enough book there for a trilogy of 3 hour films. They are including material about Gandalf and the Necromancer (a topic only touched on in the source material), but even so, it seems excessive. I will give Peter Jackson the benefit of the doubt for now, though.


Now comes the spoiler-ish part:

The movie covers from the start (including exposition about Smaug coming to the Lonely Mountain) through the eagles taking the group to the Carrock. Which –if you're looking at the plot covers approximately a third of the book's substance– so good choice there.

I liked the scene with the trolls (the first real crisis faced by Bilbo & co.). There were a few small changes to the plot, but mostly superficial ones. The trolls were comical, yet menacing. The dwarfs put up a better fight in the film than the books, but having one sack after another plop down over the dwarfs' heads would have been dull viewing, in my opinion.

Rivendell was gorgeous, as expected. Elrond seemed in a less somber mood for most of it, but that was fitting considering the nature of his visitors. The White Council bit was interesting and provided some obscure (but canon) explanation for Gandalf's real interest in Smaug. He knows trouble is brewing. I tmay be a ways off, but its coming. He does NOT want an ancient dragon like Smaug in the equation. So, Gandalf seeks to find a way to remove him. He cannot find someone to slay the wyrm, so he helps the dwarfs on their way to -aheh- beard the lion in its den. I assume he hopes they will act as a catalyst and bring the situation to a head prematurely, though it seems a bit callous to me. Who knows? I won't meddle in those affairs.

The trip into the mountains and the giants were pretty cool, but present a fairly different view of Middle Earth than the LOTR films, where half a mountain will stand up and chuck the other half at some other titanic rock-creature just for giggles.

The secondary characters were hit or miss. I was nonplussed about the inclusion of Azog as a persistent antagonist, but I can see the dramatic opportunities it presents. I was pleased to see the inclusion of Radagast (a character I've always been fond of), but he was too comical for my taste. Perhaps it was an attempt to appeal to children (my friend's kids LOVED Radagast). I found the depiction of the Great Goblin –and Goblin Town– a lot of fun, but I understand how some people found it goofy. (More on that in a moment.) But first, Gollum.

What has it gots in its pocketses? An Oscar nomination!?

I thought Serkis was robbed of a Best Supporting Actor nomination back in Two Towers. He was that good, IMO. The whole CGI thing made the Academy feel it wasn't a "real" role, but animation (different category). Gollum is every bit as good in Hobbit. I even like how they deal with him losing the Ring. The riddling is nigh perfect, too.

Okay, moving on. the movie finishes up with the dwarfs escaping Goblin Town in a Rube Goldberg-esqe fashion, reaching the woods and reuniting with Bilbo, only to get cornered by goblins and wargs, including our buddy Azog again. The resulting brouhaha is again, more Hollywood action flick than the book, but suitably impressive-looking. Bilbo gets a little bit badass by tackling an orc, but what the heck at this point. Again, like many scenes, it probably could have been a few minutes shorter but they have to fill the screen time somehow. The eagles arrive and rescue the group and take them straight to the Carrock. Everyone is in one piece (more or less), but definitely in need of some help. The perfect set up for them to go have a conversation with a giant werebear, don't you think?

Thank you for flying BIG FREAKING BIRD Air™

There is a final scene where we see Lonely Mountain and the massive hoard inside with a teasing peek at Smaug, but the big reveal is saved for later (as well it should be).

Overall, the film is solid. It's not epic, but it doesn't need to be. There and Back Again was originally a children's book, not a sweeping saga. There are whimsical elements present that are simply lacking in LOTR for the simple reason that the latter is intended for a different audience. If anything, I think the films might benefit from being shorter, lighter in tone, but faster paced. One film is probably not enough, but two long or three normal length movies would be ample, I'd think. I expect we'll see a lot of action time taking up in Smaug's attack on Lake Town and the Battle of Five Armies toward the end. 

John Carter Movie: Review

Let me state first off that I have read the ERB "Barsoom" books multiple times, I have looked forward to this movie since the first teaser trailer was released. So in that, I was biased to like it. I also heard and read many negative reviews and comments on the intertubes stating the movie was a mess before I went to see it this past weekend. So in that, I had prepared myself to be disappointed.


How wrong I was.

This movie is AWESOME! It is probably the most enjoyable science fiction movie (I exclude "comic book" movies from the genre, though it beats out most of them too.) that I have seen in years, especially in theaters. I may have to go back to the first Matrix movie to top it. The critics who gave it poor reviews, claiming it was difficult to follow must have been tweeting instead of simply listening to the dialogue, because everything was explained in a way that was actually internally consistent; a fact that puts it in the 99th percentile of sci fi films (and leaves the pathetic Star Wars prequels wallowing in the dust).

Spoiler-Free Part:

As far as the source material, it does vary slightly, but not in any way that tampers with the tone of ERB's stories. The brutal honor of the Tharks, the nobility of the Heliumites, these rang true. Even the look of Barsoom was neatly achieved through a combination of CGI and the Utah desert.

The movie is not about sci-fi action, it's about the characters. Burroughs wrote action romances: Carter's love for Dejah Thoris, Tarzan's love for Jane Porter, these themes run deep in his stories. While Carter's character is giving a slight tragic tweak, and Dejah is made into somewhat more than a trophy, I felt these changes made for a more engaging story.

Another wonderful thing about the way the film was done is the lack of stupidity. I can't think of a case where a character does something dumb just to advance the plot (a transgression present in nearly EVERY FILM EVER MADE!!) The mistakes they make are honest ones, and their successes are earned by overcoming a dangerous foe, not dumb luck.

Overall the plot is a pastiche of the first two books, with a few additions to make a more cohesive plot. Viewers expecting a page by page rendition of A Princess of Mars will be disappointed. People who want to see John Carter having an adventure on Barsoom with many elements of the original material will be thrilled.

All this isn't to say there is no action. JC leaping into battle nigh-single handed against a horde of green martians, airships battles, flier chases, gladiatorial arenas. My one minor peeve was that Carter's prowess as the "finest sword on two worlds" wasn't emphasized. He kicks major buttock, no doubt, but it's a little more Conan and a little less Errol Flynn.

The inclusion of ERB as a character (in keeping with the way the books are written) was a very nice touch, and the slight deviations from how John Carter first arrives on Mars actually hold up better in some ways than the original text, IMHO. The ending was also a slight tweak, but kept the major elements of the story well intact.

Minor Spoilers Ahead:

• The real villains are the Machiavellian Therns, who are manipulating events for their own agenda. They are mysterious, they are deadly, and they are smart. Their technology and powers explain much of the tension in the film and even how Carter gets to Mars. A neat trick, I thought, and it made the story that much more interesting.
• The presentation of the Green Tharks, and several of the other CGI creatures, was exceptional. Making the white apes gigantic was probably the greatest liberty taken.
• Woola is nigh-perfect. He skirts the edge of pure comic relief and cuteness, but stays believable and uncloying. He is portrayed as loyal, ferocious, and so-ugly-he's-kinda-cute calot he is supposed to be.

• At first I thought Lynn Collins wasn't pretty-pretty enough to be the "Deathless Beauty" that is Dejah, but seeing the character portrayed as more than just a trophy (which is pretty much what she is in the books), I found a more "real" appearance satisfying. Also, Ms. Collins on screen, acting and emoting, as opposed to simply a still, are two very different things. She is positively radiant. No, she is not naked in the film. She is sexy enough five times over in her clothes. Get over it. 
• DeFoe as Tars Tarkas is perfect. 'Nuff Said.
• The never really get into the whole issue of Carter never aging or Barsoomians living to be a thousand. Which is just as well, as it would have been an unnecessary complication and muddied the waters in regard to the Therns supposed immortality.
• Kantos Kan was always one of my favorite minor ERB characters. I viewed him as a Barsoomian Faramir; not quite on the level of Tarkas or Carter in prowess, but a close second and totally their peer in honor. James Purefoy does not disappoint. The escape scene was one of my favorites in the whole film.
• The ending gave a delightful twist and was extremely satisfying to me.  

That'll do for now. Ignore the film critics that dismiss the film. Go see it.