Very thin level of magic content today non-readers. I'm talking about good news week, Monday night game/talk show where Paul McDermott, Mikey Robins and Claire Hooper lead groups of B grade stars through a series of questions, mostly relating to current weird newstories and generally being funny.
I've been in the audience recording of these shows quite a few times, but on the latest one I got what might be nothing, or a minute eclipse of real. As the audience is piling out of the studio McDermot jokingly shouts "Go on, get the fuck out. You've spent long enough here!" Everyone laughs and continues out, then to the fellow on the stairs just in front of me I hear him shout "Don't fucking make eye contact with me buddy."
The use of buddy confuses me as to how he meant it - it's a friendly thing and a possible threat in Australia. The phrase itself, "Don't make eye contact" is funny itself, parents always warn against making eye contact with dogs because dogs see it as a threat. Though technically anytime eye contact is made someone should look away first, the inferior.
The moment seemed to be mostly unnoticed, the rest of the audience didn't hear it, and it just seemed like a horrid little drunk-off-screen pissed-off actor was in front of me, instead of the cheery faced Paul McDermot. To learn that "it all" is for the screen/camera wouldn't be a surprise, the greatest of lies in the world is TV personalities, but that moment when the potential shade fell was interesting none the less.
To relate this to magic, think of bad commons that you've lost two. You put thems aside, assuming they wont/can't/are incapable of winning games, and then someone plays a Tainted Bond on your 3/3 beast token, puts Lure on their own 1/1 and attack. You gotta block, lose 3 life, and the match.
You wont believe that's how it went down, but it did.
Tuesday, April 27, 2010
Sunday, April 25, 2010
Tokens, constantly.
A large part of Magic is it's tokens, moreso it's token creatures. I'm talking about the current cuties Spawn tokens. Before them came the ever expendable but more adorable Myr tokens of Mirrodin, and the lethal tokens of choice are of course the 1/1 Saproling hoards.
There's three spells to care about if you wanna Spawn-ramp up to your 15 cost Eldrazi mythic monsters (Not as cute). Corpsehatch, Kozilek's Predator, Brood Hatchling/er. Kill a critter get 2 tokens, make a 3/3 get two tokens or a 3/3 and three tokens. The strength of the cards comes from their ability to be relevant and still OK Playable even without the Spawn token generation. 5 mana instant kill spell is still a killspell, and in Rise one of the few cards that kills fatties easily. A Hill Giant is everyone's favourite "Dork" and a 5 drop 3/3 is kind of like everyBlackMage's "Atleast it's a good bad creature" of choice. Perhaps less so the last one, but the point remains.
It's a big like a gift, who's wrapping paper is solid gold. Ever since Lorwyn I've taken great notice of "army in a card" creatures, posterchild of which is Cloudgoat Ranger, and before that Siege-Gang Commander (though you could argue Siege-Gang isn't Army in a card so much as Shock-alot on multiple legs). If the above mentioned Rise cards did make similar tokens, 1/1s not 0/1s, they've have to bump up a rarity each.
A Spawn token with flying can block an untapped Pristine Angel - true story.
Which Eldrazi monster is the best one to ramp up too? Sadly the nature of 2-for-1s leaves me postponing the moment to "cash in" for very long times, and with tokens its worse as you can sack 5 tokens for a quick Crusher and get it bounced - 5 for 1 really. They weren't cards but they're spent resources now.
Hand of Umrakul is the worst of the lot, being a measly 7/7 with Anihilator 1. Sac a land, block with my Pelakka Wurm, draw card and get on with it. I personally favour Ulamog's Crusher, as the 8/8 for 8 body itself is good, with Anihilator is great. As for a speed experiment Hand Of does get out the gate quicker but only via tokens. Turn 3 is the earlier I can see it coming out, as Brood Hatching [1R put a token into play. If you had one, put three instead] gives you turn 2 a token, turn three another gives you the last three which you can 4-sac for 7/7 goodness. In this case the anihilator 1 is quick enough to matter, but even so Oust laughs as it undoes a lot of work.
It feels that the indispensibility of the Myr tokens is more a benefit then the Spawn tokens. Being bum blocks, mana acceleration and powerless are their main points, but less effective seeing you can be screwed once you've decided to cash them in. Doesn't make them less fun. The Myr themselves had their own cards as well, including an indestructible lord [Myr Matrix] and their ability to die and be done with feels like they've done their job, as opposed to paying for someone else's job to get started.
Still turn 4 "Kozilek's Predator" turn 5 "Another Predator, Flame Slash your whoever," is an awesome way to start.
There's three spells to care about if you wanna Spawn-ramp up to your 15 cost Eldrazi mythic monsters (Not as cute). Corpsehatch, Kozilek's Predator, Brood Hatchling/er. Kill a critter get 2 tokens, make a 3/3 get two tokens or a 3/3 and three tokens. The strength of the cards comes from their ability to be relevant and still OK Playable even without the Spawn token generation. 5 mana instant kill spell is still a killspell, and in Rise one of the few cards that kills fatties easily. A Hill Giant is everyone's favourite "Dork" and a 5 drop 3/3 is kind of like everyBlackMage's "Atleast it's a good bad creature" of choice. Perhaps less so the last one, but the point remains.
It's a big like a gift, who's wrapping paper is solid gold. Ever since Lorwyn I've taken great notice of "army in a card" creatures, posterchild of which is Cloudgoat Ranger, and before that Siege-Gang Commander (though you could argue Siege-Gang isn't Army in a card so much as Shock-alot on multiple legs). If the above mentioned Rise cards did make similar tokens, 1/1s not 0/1s, they've have to bump up a rarity each.
A Spawn token with flying can block an untapped Pristine Angel - true story.
Which Eldrazi monster is the best one to ramp up too? Sadly the nature of 2-for-1s leaves me postponing the moment to "cash in" for very long times, and with tokens its worse as you can sack 5 tokens for a quick Crusher and get it bounced - 5 for 1 really. They weren't cards but they're spent resources now.
Hand of Umrakul is the worst of the lot, being a measly 7/7 with Anihilator 1. Sac a land, block with my Pelakka Wurm, draw card and get on with it. I personally favour Ulamog's Crusher, as the 8/8 for 8 body itself is good, with Anihilator is great. As for a speed experiment Hand Of does get out the gate quicker but only via tokens. Turn 3 is the earlier I can see it coming out, as Brood Hatching [1R put a token into play. If you had one, put three instead] gives you turn 2 a token, turn three another gives you the last three which you can 4-sac for 7/7 goodness. In this case the anihilator 1 is quick enough to matter, but even so Oust laughs as it undoes a lot of work.
It feels that the indispensibility of the Myr tokens is more a benefit then the Spawn tokens. Being bum blocks, mana acceleration and powerless are their main points, but less effective seeing you can be screwed once you've decided to cash them in. Doesn't make them less fun. The Myr themselves had their own cards as well, including an indestructible lord [Myr Matrix] and their ability to die and be done with feels like they've done their job, as opposed to paying for someone else's job to get started.
Still turn 4 "Kozilek's Predator" turn 5 "Another Predator, Flame Slash your whoever," is an awesome way to start.
Friday, April 23, 2010
Spoilers, constantly.
I'm a fan of filmonic.com, which talks about movies coming up in the future. Problem is, the 2011 2012 kind of future. It's information and posters and suchlike, but the product they're extolling wont be due out for another 24 months at the least. That's a long time to hold excitement, and plenty of movies die before they're ever made. That's the bad thing about such a long-sighted movie schedule.
I'd like to stitch the same idea to spoilers for Magic sets, but the time between cards being spoiled and the actual cards being available is a pebble compared to the asteroid storm of the movie's spoiler-to-real world incarnation. The principals are similar though in that movies that die are like cards that never were. Good case would be Giant Solufuge spoiled as a 4/3, not the 4/1 it is. People went nuts.
It came out and they were disappointed, "Better when it was 4/3." I got this information from a recent Mike Flores article on mtg.com, he's good for his word. To further look at the spoiler-ific, we already know that Scars of Mirrodin is coming out "next". It's still 3 months away though. There's an entire big set to deal with before then.
Good bye.
I'd like to stitch the same idea to spoilers for Magic sets, but the time between cards being spoiled and the actual cards being available is a pebble compared to the asteroid storm of the movie's spoiler-to-real world incarnation. The principals are similar though in that movies that die are like cards that never were. Good case would be Giant Solufuge spoiled as a 4/3, not the 4/1 it is. People went nuts.
It came out and they were disappointed, "Better when it was 4/3." I got this information from a recent Mike Flores article on mtg.com, he's good for his word. To further look at the spoiler-ific, we already know that Scars of Mirrodin is coming out "next". It's still 3 months away though. There's an entire big set to deal with before then.
Good bye.
Yeah, Constantly.
Welcome to the start of my new Magic blog. It's an old movie blog just revamped. Rise of the Eldrazi has just come out, and I'm starting with Flame Slash:
I don't care that Lightning Bolt does a quicker, faster slicker job of winning the game - for it's same same mana cost with Path to Exile I'd like to say that Flame Slash is reds version of Path to Exile. Single mana that torches creatures. Better yet, they don't get a land. Neither spell hits your opponent for whatever, and pretty much anyone with a toughness 4 or less is going to get it, so early game threats.
The need to spend R on your own turn doesn't mean you can't go another RR, Kaargan Dragon awesome-ness. I may not be widely adapted in favour of more flexible cards, but I for one love it. More excitingly it torches Rhox War Monk and ceases any life-gain shinanigans, unlike Mr Bolt who apologies most humbly.
The other most exciting creature from Rise is Drana. Her body is amazing, and ability is crazy. If left alone she's a menace to your opponent, and can go toast to toe with Baneslayer Angel in the first turn of a race, then next turn eat her up and swing for 9. Protecting here with a W costed Instant makes her basically a 6 drop but even then killing for mana alone [no card required] is delicious.
Of the two Planeswalkers Gideon will see more utilisation while Sarkhan will see more hate as people remain unconvinced of his power. He isn't power though, he's card draw and simple "Quadruple Dragon" action.
I don't care that Lightning Bolt does a quicker, faster slicker job of winning the game - for it's same same mana cost with Path to Exile I'd like to say that Flame Slash is reds version of Path to Exile. Single mana that torches creatures. Better yet, they don't get a land. Neither spell hits your opponent for whatever, and pretty much anyone with a toughness 4 or less is going to get it, so early game threats.
The need to spend R on your own turn doesn't mean you can't go another RR, Kaargan Dragon awesome-ness. I may not be widely adapted in favour of more flexible cards, but I for one love it. More excitingly it torches Rhox War Monk and ceases any life-gain shinanigans, unlike Mr Bolt who apologies most humbly.
The other most exciting creature from Rise is Drana. Her body is amazing, and ability is crazy. If left alone she's a menace to your opponent, and can go toast to toe with Baneslayer Angel in the first turn of a race, then next turn eat her up and swing for 9. Protecting here with a W costed Instant makes her basically a 6 drop but even then killing for mana alone [no card required] is delicious.
Of the two Planeswalkers Gideon will see more utilisation while Sarkhan will see more hate as people remain unconvinced of his power. He isn't power though, he's card draw and simple "Quadruple Dragon" action.
Monday, April 5, 2010
The Day of the Locust
Biblical references aside, who's the Locust? Being mostly a relationship writer I assumed it was Faye and her locust like ability to cause a plauge upon the intelligence of men who were after her. This reflects the plague effect that Hollywood has on it's inhabitants, both those making movies and money, and those wishing to be in movie creation to earn money.
The outward appearance of both the book and the money promise a thing much more fun then what you actually get. "Day of the Locust" sounds like it's a great scifi movie with awful special effects and monsters towering over buildings. No such thing. Mercifully the book is the 'quicker' read, despite taking much longer to time-wise consume, because it doesn't take such a long look at Tod Hacket's real-life realisation of his artwork Hollywood burning down to hell.
The movie doesn't give long enough time nor development to the already undeveloped storyline of the book, nor are the characters anything but more real - I viewed Faye Greener with a level of "somewhat idiot, but I could get her if I knew her type" and as the horrible female plague upon the male characters, but watching the movie I rewrote it all in one succinct word: cunt.
Terrible Woman, Pathetic Men would've been a better name for this movie which is trying to be many things at once. It's a history piece focusing on Hollywood in 1930s, it's a character work of Homer Simpson and his hands and utter complete lack of self-realised known purpose, it's a relationship tragedy between Tod and Faye as well as being an expose on the way life was back then.
It doesn't deliver on any of these so much so that any one aspect takes the lead and pushes the whole business. You could argue that the 1930s Hollywood lifestyle does so but the attention and amount of energy put into Faye's horrish behavior and Tod's pathetic attempts after detract from it being purely a "location" piece.
The best scene is the very last, when, after the riot at the opening of Bucanneer, Faye returns to the old house in which Tod Hacker rented, and finds it empty. She enters, sees the shadowed baron room, smiles and leaves. The crack in the wall still holds a rose that Tod put there when he moved in.
A triumphant amount of effort was put into the making of this film, but to say it's good for it's ability to match bad acting for what is meant to be a movie about bad acting (and bad living in general) is too easy, shooting fish in a barrel. Anyone can make a movie or book and say "It's meant to be shit, so the actors/writing is to match." That's no excuse, look at what Kevin Spacey did with "middle age crisis white guy" in American Beauty.
At times the movie strikes a horror note, such as when Homer attacks Adore and then later in the same riot scene when Tod is seeing figures from his mural as the people involved in the riot. The best bit there is the visuals, they are haunting figures.
Probably the best thing about the movie is indeed the appearance of things, as it all looks very good. Despite the characters being cliched. A well dressed cliche is still a cliche. Had someone else had the acting of it, or the directing of it, or the loop-voiced recording of it, we might've seen a movie that damn well deserves to be loved and adored and showed to everyone, but as it stands it appears most people, in it's defense, point at it's relevance as a snapshot of Hollywood life in the 1930s, yes the Depression as well, and saying "Look, that's historically relevant."
It's problem, as a book, is it raises no ultimate point, urges no moral upon it's reader. "Here lies stuff, look upon it" is about as deep as it gets, exampling rather than provoking thought. "And then... and then... and then..." is a bad way to write any movie other than an action, and this isn't an action movie nor book.
The cock fight scene is probably going to make a few people cringe away, but once again brings up the topic of males fighting over this one female who drives them all ga-ga. Two cockerols fighting for the win, two (or more) males fighting for Faye.
Mostly it's a practice in self control before all is lost and you break that which you sought to keep anyway. Homer wanted to be liked, and is torn to shreds after boot-jumping little Adore's lungs out all over the pavement. Tod finally grows his own set of balls and get's himself a "win" against Faye, instead of her always having the way of things, but this leads to further setting off Homer in the following scenes. Faye finally gets the boot up her arse she needs, that is to have to put effort into looking after herself, but we never see anything beyond the movies end so she could very well have gone back to prostitution, or merely started over with another perfectly beautiful sap. And finally Faye's father dies after happily talking to Tod about his daughter and wife's promiscuity, or lack there of. Here he's finally spotted a boy who'll look after her, if she'll have him, which, considering her character, is all he could realistically hope for.
Maybe Locust is alike Sambuca, in that once people hear the name spoken they either demand you put it away, or put more into their cup. Eitherway a strong reaction. Unlike Sambuca however this always generates a bad response, or a defensive response who's main aim is "just look at the historic relevance, would you?"
It's place in the Top 100 doesn't seem confusing, considering I've only seen and read the book once and written all of the above, so I'm sure it's relevance far extends beind a mere defense of the book's inherit worth. It is very thought provoking and a fantastic study in human relations, especially concerning those of the dogs (plural) chasing the bitch (singular).
The original title for the book was The Cheated, which I think would've made a more realistic title. Not so many people would've been disappointed when they didn't get the scifi and guns and stuff.
-FM
The outward appearance of both the book and the money promise a thing much more fun then what you actually get. "Day of the Locust" sounds like it's a great scifi movie with awful special effects and monsters towering over buildings. No such thing. Mercifully the book is the 'quicker' read, despite taking much longer to time-wise consume, because it doesn't take such a long look at Tod Hacket's real-life realisation of his artwork Hollywood burning down to hell.
The movie doesn't give long enough time nor development to the already undeveloped storyline of the book, nor are the characters anything but more real - I viewed Faye Greener with a level of "somewhat idiot, but I could get her if I knew her type" and as the horrible female plague upon the male characters, but watching the movie I rewrote it all in one succinct word: cunt.
Terrible Woman, Pathetic Men would've been a better name for this movie which is trying to be many things at once. It's a history piece focusing on Hollywood in 1930s, it's a character work of Homer Simpson and his hands and utter complete lack of self-realised known purpose, it's a relationship tragedy between Tod and Faye as well as being an expose on the way life was back then.
It doesn't deliver on any of these so much so that any one aspect takes the lead and pushes the whole business. You could argue that the 1930s Hollywood lifestyle does so but the attention and amount of energy put into Faye's horrish behavior and Tod's pathetic attempts after detract from it being purely a "location" piece.
The best scene is the very last, when, after the riot at the opening of Bucanneer, Faye returns to the old house in which Tod Hacker rented, and finds it empty. She enters, sees the shadowed baron room, smiles and leaves. The crack in the wall still holds a rose that Tod put there when he moved in.
A triumphant amount of effort was put into the making of this film, but to say it's good for it's ability to match bad acting for what is meant to be a movie about bad acting (and bad living in general) is too easy, shooting fish in a barrel. Anyone can make a movie or book and say "It's meant to be shit, so the actors/writing is to match." That's no excuse, look at what Kevin Spacey did with "middle age crisis white guy" in American Beauty.
At times the movie strikes a horror note, such as when Homer attacks Adore and then later in the same riot scene when Tod is seeing figures from his mural as the people involved in the riot. The best bit there is the visuals, they are haunting figures.
Probably the best thing about the movie is indeed the appearance of things, as it all looks very good. Despite the characters being cliched. A well dressed cliche is still a cliche. Had someone else had the acting of it, or the directing of it, or the loop-voiced recording of it, we might've seen a movie that damn well deserves to be loved and adored and showed to everyone, but as it stands it appears most people, in it's defense, point at it's relevance as a snapshot of Hollywood life in the 1930s, yes the Depression as well, and saying "Look, that's historically relevant."
It's problem, as a book, is it raises no ultimate point, urges no moral upon it's reader. "Here lies stuff, look upon it" is about as deep as it gets, exampling rather than provoking thought. "And then... and then... and then..." is a bad way to write any movie other than an action, and this isn't an action movie nor book.
The cock fight scene is probably going to make a few people cringe away, but once again brings up the topic of males fighting over this one female who drives them all ga-ga. Two cockerols fighting for the win, two (or more) males fighting for Faye.
Mostly it's a practice in self control before all is lost and you break that which you sought to keep anyway. Homer wanted to be liked, and is torn to shreds after boot-jumping little Adore's lungs out all over the pavement. Tod finally grows his own set of balls and get's himself a "win" against Faye, instead of her always having the way of things, but this leads to further setting off Homer in the following scenes. Faye finally gets the boot up her arse she needs, that is to have to put effort into looking after herself, but we never see anything beyond the movies end so she could very well have gone back to prostitution, or merely started over with another perfectly beautiful sap. And finally Faye's father dies after happily talking to Tod about his daughter and wife's promiscuity, or lack there of. Here he's finally spotted a boy who'll look after her, if she'll have him, which, considering her character, is all he could realistically hope for.
Maybe Locust is alike Sambuca, in that once people hear the name spoken they either demand you put it away, or put more into their cup. Eitherway a strong reaction. Unlike Sambuca however this always generates a bad response, or a defensive response who's main aim is "just look at the historic relevance, would you?"
It's place in the Top 100 doesn't seem confusing, considering I've only seen and read the book once and written all of the above, so I'm sure it's relevance far extends beind a mere defense of the book's inherit worth. It is very thought provoking and a fantastic study in human relations, especially concerning those of the dogs (plural) chasing the bitch (singular).
The original title for the book was The Cheated, which I think would've made a more realistic title. Not so many people would've been disappointed when they didn't get the scifi and guns and stuff.
-FM
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
