Buds, Blooms, And Thorns Review Of La Viña By Devir Games

Buds, Blooms, and Thorns Review of La Viña by Devir Games
DisclaimerSupport me on Patreon!

Vitals:
Title: La Viña
Designed by: Jose Ramón Palacios
Publisher: Devir Games
Year Published: 2019
MSRP: $25
2-5p | 30-45 min | 8+

Introduction:

A very old viticulturist has passed on to a better place. When his heirs meet at his house, the question of who will become the new owner of the vineyard is brought up. The jewel of all the old man's property is this small plot of vines, producing grapes of the highest quality, which has sadly fallen into neglect. The various types of grapevines have overgrown the area without any care or supervision. The deceased owner left a will stating that he wanted the vineyard to be brought back to its former glory. In order to avoid splitting up the plot, he declared that the vineyard would be granted to whomever is able to obtain the best yield from it. The grape harvest has just started, and there are many wineries that have offered a good price for the grapes they need.

Taking turns, each player will move his grape picker down the aisle between the vines on the trellises. The player looks at the grape cards and chooses which one he wants to collect, then puts it into one of his baskets. When he comes out of the vineyard at the end of the aisle, the grape picker can deliver the grapes in his baskets to the wineries, so long as he has collected the minimum quantity they require. He then receives the reward that the wineries offer. When a player carries out his last delivery, the game ends. The rest of the players continue to play until they come to the end of the aisle for the last time. The one who has obtained the most prestige is then declared the winner.

—description from the publisher

Blooms:
Blooms are the game's highlights and features.  Elements that are exceptional.

• Outstanding presentation, artwork, and component quality.  I especially love the prestige tokens.
• I love the mechanic that allows you to move as far forward along the path as you like, but the person at the back moves first.
• Great balance between gaining resources (grapes) and racing to the end in order to sell for points.
• I like how the barrels are used to count down to the end of the game, with the last player to sell at a particular winery gaining a bonus and the game ending once someone places their last barrel. It's a nice blend of racing to end the game and timing your sales for maximum benefit.

Buds:
Buds are interesting parts of the game I would like to explore more. 

• A lot of different Grape and Winery cards mean there will be a different mix every game, making each game play differently.
• The game scales great from 2 to 5 players, with some minor changes for 2 players (each player controls two workers).

Thorns:
Thorns are a game's shortcomings and any issues I feel are noteworthy.

• The rulebook is pretty poorly translated.  There are a few areas where the description of gameplay is not as clear as it could be and a few other areas where things are missing or just left unexplained.  It took watching the gameplay video and reading forum comments to make sure we had all the rules correct.
• The basket upgrades felt very unbalanced.  I thought it was a translation error at first, so my second game we played a little different, but then later I learned that the unbalanced feeling rule is correct.
• Not much gameplay arc.  There's no sense of growth in the game; what you do in the first round is pretty much what you do in the last round, and it feels like it takes too long to get to the end because of this.

Final Thoughts:

There are some things that La Viña does great - incorporating the theme, balancing resource gathering versus racing to sell, etc.  However, there are some areas where La Viña just doesn't quite hit the mark.  The rulebook leaves a lot unclear, and there's not much game arc, however the biggest issue is that the basket upgrades feels very unbalanced.

There are always fewer upgrades available than players and there's no rule against upgrading from a small bucket to the large bin, skipping over the medium basket.  The first time I played we thought this was wrong, so the second time we said you could only upgrade one step at a time.  So you couldn't upgrade your starting 2 card bucket straight to a 4 card bin.  You'd first have to upgrade it to a 3 card basket.  You could upgrade your 3 card basket at the start to a 4 card bin, but then risk getting stuck with a 2 card bucket that can't be upgraded because all the 3 card baskets are taken.  That change felt a lot more balanced.  But then, after watching a gameplay video with the publisher, I saw that it was allowed to upgrade directly from the small basket to the large bin.  It seems like an obvious move to shoot for in the first round, which isn't too hard since the difference is only 7 prestige, and that means the player(s) finishing last have no shot at getting that upgrade.  That feels wrong and unbalanced, but I guess that's correct.

La Viña is very close to being a Bloom game for me.  I think for what it does though, Parks from Keymaster Games scratches the same itch and does it a bit better.  If I hadn't played Parks, I probably would have enjoyed La Viña more.  But the unbalanced feel of the basket upgrades, the poorly translated rulebook, and lack of any game arc are enough to knock it down to a Bud.  It is quite a bit cheaper than Parks though, so if you want this style of game, La Viña is a great affordable alternative.  For me though, since I have both games, I'd choose to play Parks over La Viña pretty much every time.

Buds, Blooms, and Thorns Rating:

Bud!  This game definitely has some
great moments.  It's good for several plays
and should appeal to most gamers, especially
if you enjoy other games like this.

Pictures:

Did you like this review?  Show your support: Support me on Patreon!Also, click the heart at Board Game Links , like GJJ Games on Facebook , or follow on Twitter .  And be sure to check out my games on  Tabletop Generation.

GJJ Games Reviews are independent, unpaid reviews of games I, George Jaros, have played with my family and friends.  Some of these games I own, some are owned by friends, some are borrowed, and some were provided by a publisher or designer for my honest feedback and evaluation.  I make every attempt to be both honest and constructively critical in my reviews, and they are all my opinions.  There are four types of reviews on GJJ Games: Full Reviews feature critical reviews based on a rubric and games receive a rating from 0 to 100.  Quick Reviews and Kickstarter Previews are either shorter reviews of published games or detailed preview reviews of crowdfunding games that will receive a rating from 0 to 10 based on my impressions of the game.  Buds, Blooms,and Thorns reviews are shorter reviews of either published or upcoming games that highlight three aspects of a game: Buds are parts of a game I look forward to exploring more, Blooms are outstanding features of a game, and Thorns are shortcomings of a game.  Each BBT review game will receive an overall rating of Thorn, Bud, or Bloom.

Corpus Christi

Not about video games but about reality.

This morning, I held between my thumb and finger a small piece of bread, and with sacred words uttered in almost silence, I held Jesus Christ, my saviour, my Lord, Who loves me, Who knows me, the lot marked out for me.

I, chosen among thousands, His beloved.

What a privilege! A greater act than the creation of the universe, an intimacy even the angels do not possess. When I am tempted to hold other things, other people, other life options,

I look at Him, Who is hiding between my thumb and forefinger.

HE is Mine and I am His. And I realize that to exchange this for anything else, even the whole world, would be madness, would be folly to the utmost, because I am holding Him, my true end, my lasting good, the summum bonum.

O priest, all this is yours!

To turn away from this, is to turn away from Him.




-Fr. Mark Higginsx
x

2667, Roc 'N Rope By Coleco

The last game I'm covering this year is Roc 'n Rope by Coleco, from the Konami arcade game. Thank you for a wonderful if stunted year, I really needed the break. I'm really loving doing the research again and I hope to get ahead a little bit in the month of December. I will be doing a Christmas show, if you have ANY Christmas memories you want to share with us, please send them to 2600gamebygame@gmail.com by the end of day December 16. Sarah and I will be reading and listening to your messages in the show. Also, the next game I will cover in January is the Activision Decathlon. If you have any feedback on that game, why not get an early start and send it to me by January 12th. I hope you all had a wonderful Thanksgiving if you are in the USA; I am very thankful for all of you, and I thank you for listening.

Roc 'n Rope on Random Terrain
Roc 'n Rope on KLOV
Ed English's company Elerts web site
Ed English in a news story about Hasbro's Frogger, 1997

Making Monsters Different - An Example Of Invisibility

Different invisibility/blinking mechanic that I've used, instead of just a modifier to hit roll

Advanced Dungeons & Dragons presents a great many monsters who can have some really cool effects, but at the end, a lot of those effects get folded into simple "reduce to-hit by x" and it's done. Players know that the creature will be harder to hit, but that's it...

What if we made took this idea of an invisible/shadowy monster that's hard to hit, but rewards players who use tactics to overcome it's special ability?

In simple, what I'm proposing is doing away with the straight -4 penalty for hitting invisible/shadowy figures. Creatures get two ACs - one when they're "invisible" and the second when their location has been pinpointed. Let's take a shadow as our example - they'll have AC2 when invisible, AC7 when PCs know where it's at.

At first, invisibility is just that, it can't be seen. In the case of the shadow, depending on light, I might rule, depending on what players are doing, that they catch glimpses of "something wrong" in the direction they're looking, if they're looking at the shadow. Or they catch glimpses of movement, but nothing is there.

So the PCs would be groping around and striking out. As the DM, I'm keeping track of where the creature is at. I will let the PCs roll to hit, but for those that aren't within melee range of the creature, they "miss" and will do so automatically, but I don't tell them any different. Just that they missed.

For PCs that are within melee range, they are rolling to hit against the harder AC, so in this case vs. AC2 for the shadow. They hit!

Now the PCs have an idea of where this thing is. As long as the PCs are within melee range of the creature, it can be pinpointed and it's AC drops down to 7. So life is good, right? Well, not necessarily.

Let's say all the PCs miss in combat - I'm going to rule that they've no longer pinpointed the creature and now its AC is back up to AC2! It's managed to avoid being hit and seen, so it has a chance to slip away again! At this point, since they've not pinpointed it, it could even flee without penalty, though the PCs could hit vs. AC2.

So why would I do this? To me, an approach like this makes fighting an invisible creature more interactive, more mysterious and potentially more exciting. Rather than a boring -4 to hit, this allows the PCs to use circling and trapping tactics. If the PCs did circle the creature while it was pinpointed, then I would not allow it to slip away. It might go back to the AC2, but it's surrounded - nowhere to run!

This also requires a bit more interactivity with the players. They can just attack the darkness, but I as DM know where this thing is. If they're within melee range, I describe an effect (shifting shadows, distortions in the light) that lefts them know they're close. Attacking blindly? Not seeing the effect.

Once they hit, then they see blood/wounds/effects which allows them and others to hit better. The creature is obviously trying to get back to being hidden! So... if everyone misses that round, they're not able to see it as well, and next round it may slip away!

These are the kinds of small things I like to add to make the game more interesting. The players don't need to know the mechanics in shifts in AC (unless they ask), but they do see the effects. I find doing things like this makes monsters... mysterious. Unpredictable.

I've also earned the players' trust that I'm fair and always give them a path to success while also giving them an obstacle to overcome. Tactics helps with this type of monster (one person hits, rest form a kill box. Now it's trapped....)

Also, I'm using Descending AC, but you can modify Ascending AC in similar fashion, going from hard to hit, to easy to hit, once the creature is pinpointed.

What do you think? Do you use certain effects and different takes on mechanics to achieve an effect that makes the monsters more interesting?

Podcast Episode 28 - Lessons Learned And Campaign Happenings

A lot of games over the past couple of weeks, and some lessons learned as a DM! Come listen as I share about running boss battles, using random events in interesting ways and how a big reveal had me worried that I'd lost a player!


Anchor Episode link: https://anchor.fm/the-dungeon-masters-handb/episodes/Episode-28---Lessons-Learned-and-Campaign-Happenings-easbbl

Leave me a voice message and let me know what you think or ask questions if you have them! (312) 625-8281‬ (US/Canada)

You can also leave a message on Anchor: anchor.fm/the-dungeon-masters-handbook/message 

Find episode posts and other D&D content on my blog: chgowiz-games.blogspot.com 

Intro music: Dragonaut by Bradley The Buyer (bit.ly/2ASpAlF)
Outro music: Dream by Wild Shores (bit.ly/2jbJehK)
Stinger music by TJ Drennon - Check out his Patreon page at https://www.patreon.com/TJD/!

RELAUNCH Of The Grav StuG Kickstarter. Up To 50.9% Discount!

 TAKE ME TO THE KICKSTARTER!

Why relaunch, what has changed?

By allowing plastic tooling to do what it does best; making perfect copies in large volume I can reduce the cost of each kit with a relatively minor impact to the total funding goal required.
Most of the costs for this campaign are tied up in paying for the tools… Making more copies of the kit is a lesser expense comparatively. Spreading the substantial fixed costs of the tooling over a greater number of kits is a way for me to add value without adding risk to my backers.
I am aware that many of the UE/UK customers will have to contend with VAT or import taxes and that those fees may be something of an impediment. By reducing the price per kit significantly, I can absorb most or all of those fees within the kit price. Providing my backers with a better value, with an eye to gathering a larger backer base.

Why did I not do this before? 

I based my price point on the number of kits I felt could reasonably sell.
In the previous launch, the costs were calculated with a total number of 1200 of kits sold. The estimate of 1200 total kits were driven by my understanding of past campaigns, my known customer base and a survey regarding this kit, sent out last September. Although the 1200 total may have been a reasonable estimate, it drove the price per kit higher than I would have liked.
The last campaign was relatively close~ 998 total kits backed, 83% funded $46,484 dollars raised. Close enough that I felt one more run was warranted, with some adjustments to price to make it more attractive or palatable for those who must look at their tax burden when a kit arrives.
This campaign has been targeted with a total of 1800 kits sold. Lowering the price per kit substantially to drive volume and still fund the campaign in a way that I can deliver with confidence.

I have complete confidence in this kit, its design and the quality I will deliver.
I have complete confidence that these kits are well priced and reflects a true value.
 
Discounts ranging from 38.2% to 50.9% for non retail backers.
Retailer level packs priced at 56.4% to 67.3% off.

Let's make this happen!

Final Fantasy 6 Review

From Guest blogger Helen Davis

Final Fantasy 6, or known as 3 in North America, is one of the greatest RPGs of all time. It  certainly ranks high on the nostalgia factor, and many iconic moments in Final Fantasy history are portrayed in this game. An unforgettable cast of characters, top-notch graphics for the time, a stunning soundtrack and an intriguing storyline keep the player hooked till the very end.  How does it hold up from a Christian perspective?

Very well, actually.  Though there are some moments that are questionable, mainly that one of the final bosses is based on the Virgin Mary, the plot throughout the game more than makes up for it.  Unlike FF9, which views souls as recyclable and life as meaningless, FF6 seems to incorporate more of the biblical worldview, or at least, not anti-biblical. Many of the characters face losses but deal with them in ways that are more consistent with Scripture—Locke feels remorse over the death of his first love, Rachel, believing he couldn't protect her.   He resolves his guilt at the end and decides to move onto his new love. Cyan loses his wife and child and is nearly destroyed, but receives his courage back, believing he must move on and leave the past in the past.  He later becomes a powerful asset to the party, although the Dreamscape sequence in the World of Ruin with Cyan is somewhat creepy. Celes tries to commit suicide after the loss of her only family member, but regains her courage and gathers the party back together.  Though the reason why she should not commit suicide is not addressed, the fact that she is able to recover, move on, and reunite the party shows why we should not. 

The star of the show, though, I feel is Terra. Terra is, in many ways, quite similar to Christ. First of all, her Japanese name, Tina, is actually a shortening of Christina, a feminine form of Christ's name. She is also half human and half esper, and bridges the gap between them, much like Jesus bridges the gap between God and man.  Terra also desires to learn what love is, and finds it not in a carnal way, but in protecting the children in Mobliz. Terra is also unjustly accused and persecuted during the course of the game. At the end, Terra even offers to sacrifice herelf for the party, but remains on earth as a human, in a somewhat interesting parallel to Christ's resurrection. 

Those who begrudge Final Fantasy females such as Aeris and Rinoa should look to Terra and Celes. Both women are strong female protagonists that overcome personal and exterior difficulties to emerge as leaders, Terra in the first half and Celes in the second.  Both are amazing women that complement each other and even form a friendship.

Kefka is also an interesting counterpart to Satan. Saying he wants to destroy all and create a monument to nonexistence is exactly what Satan wishes to do—in Jesus's words 'the thief comes but to steal, kill and destroy.' What words better sum up Kefka Palazzo?  The first scene of him shows him 'destroying' Terra's innocence and ordering her to 'kill kill kill!' The second scene has Kefka 'stealing' General Leo's authority over the Doman mission, killing many with poision, and 'destroying' Cyan's life. His horrors do not end here, as in the interlude on the Floating Continent, Kefka commands the warring triad to strike down Emperor Gestahl so Kefka can rule- an allegory to Satan trying to usurp God. Kefka is later known as destruction and seems to be completely evil with no redeeming qualities, unlike villians such as Golbez or Sephiroth, who at least showed remorse or motive.

The end of the game shows the cast finding joy in spite of the fact the world is nearly dead. Terra has found love. Locke and Celes have found each other. Cyan carries his family inside of him. Gau has his friends. Sabin and Edgar have each other. Setzer has his dream After threatening to destroy  all their dreams and hopes, Terra counters that life continues and that it's not the end result of life that matters, but the day to day joys of life and love. 

Is FF6 perfect? No. But in comparison to the poison of FF7's recyclable souls and FF9's 'our memories live on', it's a breath of fresh air. Highly recommended.

Against Book Purism

DISCLAIMER:

Copyrighted material that may appear on this blog is for the usage of further commentary, criticism, or teaching within the standards of "fair use" in Section 107 of the Copyright Act. All video, music, text, or images shown, all belong to their respective creators or companies. I own nothing so…PLEASE DON'T SUE ME!!! (If you own any of the copyrighted material on this blog and oppose its presence, please be civil and contact me at sansuarobi@hotmail.com or sansuthecat@yahoo.com, the content will be removed ASAP).

Picture by Andy Mabbett

I have recently started watching the original anime adaptation of the manga Fullmetal Alchemist. I am enjoying it a great deal, but when sharing my enthusiasm with certain people, they are always sure to point out that it is inferior to the source material. In fact, I have been dissuaded from the anime on the basis that I should read the manga instead, or at least, that I should read it first. I even knew someone who wouldn't watch the anime of Neon Genesis Evangelion for similar reasons.

I recall similar cries of foul-up leveled against the Harry Potter films for not including Peeves the Poltergeist or Arthur Weasley's flamboyant entrance through the Dursley's chimney. Even writer Stephen King famously despises Stanley Kubrick's film of his novel The Shining because it's, "Cold. I'm not a cold guy. I think one of the things people relate to in my books is this warmth, there's a reaching out and saying to the reader, 'I want you to be a part of this.' With Kubrick's The Shining I felt that it was very cold, very 'We're looking at these people, but they're like ants in an anthill, aren't they doing interesting things, these little insects.'" (Gompertz, BBC)

I can't imagine the numbers of people who despise the Hunger Games for its lack of avoxes, Lord of the Rings for its lack of Tom Bombadill, or Disney's 20,000 Leagues Under The Sea for its addition of seal. Apparently, the Bible isn't the only holy text. There's this infectious idea among some that literature must be adapted as true to the text as humanly possible, and even the slightest divergence is a cause for criticism. I call this idea book purism and it can damage one's perception of an otherwise excellent film or television show. 

To deconstruct book purism, we must first understand what an adaptation is. One definition of the word adaptation, according to my Webster's Dictionary, is,

"3. b. a form or structure modified to fit a changed environment" (10)

So, based on this definition, fundamentally, making a visual adaptation that is completely true to the text is impossible. The literary and the visual exist in two very different worlds. One world unfolds in your mind, while the other is presented before you. One medium describes the scenery in a paragraph or a panel, while the other can show it in an establishing shot. So clearly, things change when your story is taken from one world into the next. Understandably, parts of a text will be lost during the transfer, but also, a film could bring dimensions to the story that it otherwise may not have had. I believe that a visual work and a literary work should live as independent entities, each one to be judged on their own merits. Their relationship should be like that between a parent and a child. Yes, the child and the parent are related, but both can live differently. So when Christopher Tolkien, son of Lord of the Rings author J.R.R. Tolkien, said in an interview for Le Monde that, "They eviscerated the book by making it an action movie for young people aged 15-25," he, being very close to author of the novels, tends to judge the films more by their differences to the book, as opposed to judging the films in their own right. I think that his critique, however, is more appropriate for the Hobbit films.

Now when I say book purism I mean a sort of blind worship to the text. So much so that any change, regardless if it improves the visual text or no, is inherently wrong. It is the belief that the book is always better than the film or show. This is not to say that there aren't ideas in the text that wouldn't make the film or show better, or that authors shouldn't care about how their works are represented in other mediums. We have to balance respecting the intent of the creator, while recognizing the variations of the art forms.

First off, the elitist idea that books are inherently better than films and television in every case. Now, being a writer, and something of a reader myself, I have a deep respect for the literary form. In fact, I would argue that reading is an essential activity to learning about human nature and the world around us. Much of our knowledge and much of the world's best storytelling was put down into books. Indeed, books, in their forms, be it novels, poetry, plays, or graphic novels, have very much enriched my life. However, man need not experience art through the text alone. I believe that movies are also very enriching, and to a degree, essential. 

In an interview for the Archive of American Television, Roger Ebert said on films, "They affect the way people think and feel and behave and they can be both a good influence on society and a negative influence." The same could be said for television. Books are a more challenging art form that require active engagement on behalf of the reader, whereas films and TV simply require you to sit in front of a screen for an hour or more. Since books have been around longer than films and television, they are seen as above them. In most cases, I agree, they often are, but not in all cases. Book purism tends to reinforce the idea that if one truly wants to enjoy an adaptation, they must do the so-called "busy work" of reading. Why do we punish people in this way? People should come to literature out of love, not force (though a little nudging here and there couldn't hurt). Since when did film and television become dessert and books the vegetables? (They're both treats as far as I'm concerned). Are visual arts, because of their easy accessibility, these sinful things that we should steer from unless we jump through all of the hoops? This whole ordeal reminds me of passage in Matthew 12: 41, "The men of Nineveh shall rise in judgement with this generation, and shall condemn it: because they repented at the preaching of Jonas; and, behold, a greater than Jonas is here" (418, King James Bible). To provide some context here, Jesus is discontented that the people who praise the old prophets of God, will not lend that same praise to him, the messiah. Now the point that I'm trying to make here isn't that Jesus was the messiah, (that's up to you), but that simply because something is new doesn't mean you can't find as much, if not more value in it than an older thing. Yes, moving pictures are a relatively new way of viewing the world, considering that literature and paintings are centuries old, whereas films and television are little over a hundred. Yet this fact does not make the visual adaptation inherently inferior, but opens new possibilities that otherwise may not have been conceived. We have an abundance of moving pictures to explore, let's appreciate them without the stigma.

Second, a visual adaptation can improve on or add things otherwise unable to be conveyed in its literary form. Take Walt Disney's Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs, which was based on the Grimm Brothers' fairy tale. Now the original fairy tale is a fine one, but one of its problems was that the dwarfs were all the same, and this would be boring to see on film. So Disney gave each of the dwarfs distinct characteristics, and thus, they add some of the most entertaining humor to the story. Disney later did something similar with the fairies in Sleeping Beauty. Consider, also, Hayao Miyazaki's adaptation of Diane Wynn Jones's Howl's Moving Castle. In the book, the walking castle, while being a fascinating object, was, to my memory, more of a backdrop to the bickering romance between Sophie and Howl. Whereas in Miyazaki's film, the castle takes on this radical makeover as an organic steampunk chimera. It serves as a great centerpiece of the story and becomes something of a character in and of itself. It is a visual treat that you can't quite get by reading the book. In short, just think about this: would you rather read about a Quidditch match in Harry Potter, or see one before your eyes?

Third, for best results, the visual adaptation should respect the intent of the creator. This means understanding the soul of the story and expressing that through the visual piece. So when Stephen King says things like, "Shelley Duvall as Wendy is really one of the most misogynistic characters ever put on film, she's basically just there to scream and be stupid and that's not the woman that I wrote about" (BBC), it means that Kubrick probably didn't understand what King wanted to convey, or for that matter, even cared. This difference in vision in The Shining is further elaborated by Laura Miller in her article "What Stanley Kubrick Got Wrong About The Shining." for Salon,

"King is, essentially, a novelist of morality. The decisions his characters make — whether it's to confront a pack of vampires or to break 10 years of sobriety — are what matter to him. But in Kubrick's "The Shining," the characters are largely in the grip of forces beyond their control. It's a film in which domestic violence occurs, while King's novel is about domestic violence as a choice certain men make when they refuse to abandon a delusional, defensive entitlement. As King sees it, Kubrick treats his characters like "insects" because the director doesn't really consider them capable of shaping their own fates. Everything they do is subordinate to an overweening, irresistible force, which is Kubrick's highly developed aesthetic; they are its slaves. In King's "The Shining," the monster is Jack. In Kubrick's, the monster is Kubrick."

I bring this up to demonstrate that while Kubrick's The Shining may be a poor adaptation of the novel, that does not necessarily make it an equally poor film. Yes, Jack Nicholson's performance is not much different than his others, and yes, Wendy's depiction as a nitwit damel-in-distress is sexist, but the movie still has a frightful visual presence hardly rivaled by most horror pictures. So it is important that when we judge an adapted piece, we are sure to distinguish between its success as as a good story and its success as a good adaptation. 

Now I think that Christopher Tolkien had a good point about the Lord of the Rings films, when he also said in Le Monde, "The chasm between the beauty and seriousness of the work, and what it has become, has overwhelmed me. The commercialization has reduced the aesthetic and philosophical impact of the creation to nothing. There is only one solution for me: to turn my head away." A similar criticism was also echoed by film critic Roger Ebert, who said in his review of Fellowship of the Ring that,

"The Ring Trilogy embodies the kind of innocence that belongs to an earlier, gentler time. The Hollywood that made "The Wizard of Oz" might have been equal to it. But "Fellowship" is a film that comes after "Gladiator" and "Matrix," and it instinctively ramps up to the genre of the overwrought special-effects action picture. That it transcends this genre--that it is a well-crafted and sometimes stirring adventure--is to its credit. But a true visualization of Tolkien's Middle-earth it is not."

Ebert and Tolkien both lament the darker and more action-paced tone than an epic picture like the Lord of the Rings would have in today's blockbuster Hollywood. I feel that Ebert, being a film critic, recognizes this as more of a reality for the film, than Tolkien, who decries it. Now I have deep affections for both the film trilogy and the book trilogy. The books, to me, felt more like epic fairy tales, with compelling characters and flawless descriptions. They also have degrees of subtlety in presentation and welcoming atmospheres in tone. The films, on the other hand, are incredibly shot, acted, and written. I really feel that they captured the heart and the scale of the novels, even if Tolkien doesn't think so. I will admit, however, that some of the subtleties in the text are lost on the films. Take the scene, for instance, where Galadriel is tempted to take the Ring from Frodo. In the book, it certainly had an ominous and dramatic atmosphere, "She lifted up her hand and from the ring she wore there issued a great light that illumined her alone and left all else dark. She stood before Frodo seeming now tall beyond measurement, and beautiful beyond enduring, terrible and worshipful" (410, Tolkien, J.R.R.). In the film, however, Galadriel turns into a glowing green monster whose lines were apparently dubbed by a female Darth Vader with water in her helmet. The event is so campy that it undercuts the seriousness of the scene. (The awkward close-ups throughout had a habit of doing that, too.) Tolkein's other critique, that Lord of the Rings is now a franchise to be sold in any way possible, is sad, but this is not really a fault on the films. It's a fault on our commercialized culture, in which the mass arts struggle to survive without compromise. Nevertheless, this is still, once more, a judgement on the films as adaptations, as opposed to them as their own stories. Now that is not to say that there isn't overlap in these analyses, but the influence of the book is certainly a stronger inclination in these criticisms. Ebert even admitted to this in his Fellowship review, "That "Fellowship of the Ring" doesn't match my imaginary vision of Middle-earth is my problem, not yours." There are so many different ways of seeing Lord of the Rings, in fact, that Marcel Aubron-Bulles of the Tolkeinist wrote a great article entitled "Why the 'film purists' and the 'book purists' will never understand each other – on how (not) to appreciate Peter Jackson's work". Okay, so I'm not the first person to use the term book purist, but getting back on subject, Aubron-Bulles wrote on the different perspectives that general movie goers, film critics, and fans of the book would use in criticism of these films. By the end of the article, he still loved the films, even if they were different from the source,

"I love the films, I love the books and I find it very hard sometimes to agree with all these positions brought forward – I am just a Tolkien fan who thinks that his favourite writer and his books are the best there are and if someone like PJ does films then they are amazing, too (even if they have nothing to do with the books.)"

Fourth, yes, mistakes can happen in adapting a work between the mediums. Horrible mistakes. We need to ask ourselves, should the story even have a visual adaptation at all? Some literary stories don't make good films. Has there been a filmed version of The Great Gatsby that's worthy of the status the book's reception apparently gets? For some reason, F. Scott Fitzgerald's story is just kind of boring when put on a screen. Perhaps it's a pacing issue. We should also consider how making the story animated or live-action will affect its presentation as well. Lewis Carroll's Alice in Wonderland received a great animated version by Walt Disney in 1954, since the animators had few limitations in illuminating Carrol's colorful world. On the other hand, when Tim Burton took a crack at it in the live-action format, limitations in special effects were obvious and unable to produce the same believability that the 1954 version did. When Beowulf, however, got the animated treatment, it didn't look impressive so much as distracting and awkward at times. A live-action retelling of the poem would have been able to better convey the story's somber tone. 

Oftentimes, as the book purists will happily tell me, distancing oneself from the text is what can make an adaptation less satisfying. In the Hunger Games, for instance, Katniss's personal narration from the novel is virtually absent. This would have been an easy way to slip exposition into the film and show Katniss's relationship with Peeta was clearly one of convenience as opposed to an actual romance. At that point, anyways. Without the narration, this undercurrent to Peeta and Katniss is made unclear in the film, confusing audiences, while the lack of exposition will sometimes necessitate abrupt interruptions from the talking heads of Capitol TV which break the flow of the narrative. In the Guin Saga novels, the battle scenes are described with enough of bloodshed and gore to please Quentin Tarantino. This brought a brutal sense of realism to the story, and more tension to fights. In the anime (a medium known for its ultra-violence), the battles are completely toned down to almost Pokemon levels, and thus, the dimension of reality that the fight scenes once had is lost. These changes, I must emphasize, are only worth noting insofar as they affect the enjoyment of the film or show on its own. To illustrate, the exclusion of Peeves the Poltergeist from the Harry Potter films was not a bad idea. Reducing Cho Chang's development in Order of the Phoenix was. By the way, staying too true to the book has its own slew of problems as well. Take, for example, the decision in Catching Fire to include the white baboons in the Quarter Quell. No amount of CG wizardy could make that look any good.

In the end, the literary and the visual often oppose, but they can also complement each other. In an interview with Joseph Gelmis, director Stanley Kubrick had this to say about the filmed and written versions of 2001: A Space Odyssey:

"I think it gives you the opportunity of seeing two attempts in two different mediums, print and film, to express the same basic concept and story. In both cases, of course, the treatment must accommodate to the necessities of the medium. I think that the divergencies between the two works are interesting."

Indeed they are.
 
Now, if you'll excuse me, I'll get back to watching Fullmetal Alchemist.







Bibliography

Aubron-Bulles, Marcel. "Why the 'film purists' and the 'book purists' will never understand each other – on how (not) to appreciate Peter Jackson's work." The Tolkienist. September 27, 2012. Web. http://www.thetolkienist.com/2012/09/27/why-the-film-purists-and-the-book-purists-will-never-understand-each-other-on-how-not-to-appreciate-peter-jacksons-work/

Ebert, Roger. "Lord Of The Rings: The Fellowship Of The Ring." rogerebert.com. December 19, 2001. Web. http://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/lord-of-the-rings-the-fellowship-of-the-ring-2

Gompertz, Will. "Stephen King returns to The Shining with Doctor Sleep." BBC News. September 19, 2013. Web. Video. http://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-24151957

Kubrick, Stanley. "An Interview With Stanley Kubrick (1969). " Interview by Joseph Gelmis. Excerpt. The Film Director As Superstar. Garden City, New York: Doubleday And Company, 1970. Print. The Kubrick Site. Web. http://www.visual-memory.co.uk/amk/doc/0069.html

Miller, Laura. "What Stanley Kubrick Got Wrong About The Shining." Salon. October 1, 2013. Web. http://www.salon.com/2013/10/01/what_stanley_kubrick_got_wrong_about_the_shining/

Rerolle, Raphaelle. "My Father's "Eviscerated" Work - Son Of Hobbit Scribe J.R.R. Tolkien Finally Speaks Out." Le Monde. July 9, 2012. http://www.lemonde.fr/culture/article/2012/07/05/tolkien-l-anneau-de-la-discorde_1729858_3246.html Trans. Worldcrunch. Web. http://www.worldcrunch.com/culture-society/my-father-039-s-quot-eviscerated-quot-work-son-of-hobbit-scribe-j.r.r.-tolkien-finally-speaks-out/hobbit-silmarillion-lord-of-rings/c3s10299/#.VC4VBRbp9EP

Rutkowski, Gary. "Roger Ebert On Film Criticism-TV LEGENDS." The Archive Of American Television. November 2, 2005. YouTube. December 30, 2008. Web. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8FCVlQ_5aSI

The King James Bible. pg 418. Colombia: Tom Nelson, 1987. Print.

Tolkien, J.R.R. The Lord Of The Rings: The Fellowship Of The Ring. pg 410. United States: Del Rey, 1954. Print.

Webster's Universal College Dictionary. pg 10. New York: Gramercy, 2004. Print.

Want to watch Fullmetal Alchemist, too? See it on YouTube through Funimation's official page: https://www.youtube.com/show/fullmetalalchemist

In this video, director Mick Garris discusses why the film of The Shining is a poor adaptation of the book. Warning: the clip shows scary images from The Shining

Visit By Head Of Games Design At TT-Games - Arthur Parsons

We are very lucky to welcome Arthur Parsons to our Games Design studio at UCLan this week.
Arthur is Head of Games Design at TT_Games and as such, it's so amazing that he takes time to visit our course and speak directly and openly with our students.
Arthur gave a great presentation about the criteria involved in designing and making a Lego game and offering a broad insight into the workings of the industry in terms of producing and marketing a game.
It's great to have the chance to speak with experienced industry experts such as Arthur.
His warmth and enthusiasm always motivate our students so much and encourage them to work hard and develop their passion for games design.

 

Jobs/Internships Available At ArchieMD Atlanta

ArchieMD have available positions for full time, part-time and internship to any KSU Games Program students/graduates the following positions:

1. Junior Unity3D Game Developer

ArchieMD, Inc. – Atlanta, GA

2. Experienced Server Engineer

ArchieMD, Inc. – Atlanta, GA

3. Senior Unity3D Augmented Reality Software Developer

ArchieMD, Inc. – Atlanta, GA

ArchieMD is a leading provider of visually-based health science education. More information is available here http://www.archiemd.com/

For further information, contact me, or the company directly

Allan