Double Agent
At the movies - December 7, 2000 - Chris Jones

Disclaimer: The opinions expressed within this column are those of the participants and the moderator, and do not necessarily reflect those of the GIA. There is coarse language and potentially offensive material afoot. Omnivores are cool. Don't say we didn't warn you.

Let me advance a potentially unpopular hypothesis, if I may: What if the Final Fantasy Movie, is, for us, no different than the Pokemon movie was for the under 12 set? Or reaching further back, the Rugrats movie, the Power Rangers movie, Transformers, etc. Yeah, we're older, and I'd hope we're smarter, but are we really any less susceptible to hype? What if, despite the cutting edge visuals, the movie ultimately comes down to cheaply exploiting things we're deeply attached to? How would we feel if Sakaguchi does something stupid, like work in a Chocobo for one "wacky" scene completely out of line with the rest of the movie? How much are we willing to forgive to see an FF movie on the big screen?

Thoughts like these keep me awake at night.

I probably need to get out more.

Onward.

Imagine the possibilities
To say that Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within will present technology and graphics that are state of the art is an understatement. It should redefine the art itself, crack the industry wide open. It should grab the moviegoer by his Tifa-lusting throat and declare itself emperor over the realms of animated escapism. The movie poster should feature Aki standing atop a pile of Disney-drawn rubble, brandishing Jar Jar Binks' head on a pike.

I saw the eye, I couldn't tell the difference. I watched the movements and thought there were people masquerading beneath pixel cloaks. The computer-generated fantastic has never been this visually real before, and any animated movie that wants to capture my attention from here on will have to meet the Final Fantasy standard.

Did you see Titan: AE? If not, you're like most of the world, and you missed out. The computer generated environments in that movie blew the scalp off my head as well, but it hardly broke the industry wide, as it could and probably should have. Final Fantasy shouldn't suffer this fate, as it has a certain guaranteed viewer base, those millions of us who triumphed attaining the rat tail for Bahamut, who got misty when Palom and Porom petrified themselves, who felt the flames of Sephiroth's town burning. Further proof? A plug for a favorite website, upcomingmovies.com, where the Final Fantasy page is the third most visited 2001 release.

The scary part? Ebert gets at it. What happens when the almost real replaces the really real? Research the interesting rumors that engulfed Andrew Nichols' (director of Gattaca) next film, Simone (again, go to upcomingmovies.com for great coverage). For a while people thought a computer generated character would replace a real one, and no one was thrilled. I wouldn't be thrilled if computer generated characters started to replace fleshy humans in the mainstream, but I thrill at the idea of a new era of animated media. And isn't it exciting finally to be truly scared by the prospect of science fiction come alive? It feels as though technology's racing faster than ever before, and this movie is The Next Big Thing. Nothing less, nothing more.

Daniel McNamara (Talan, to a few old friends)

Always nice to start off with some unabashed enthusiasm. Yes, the movie looks great, and I've been salivating over it for years. But your own example of Titan A.E. shows that looking great isn't always enough, not when it's tied down with a mediocre plot and boring characters. Nearly any of the recent FFs have had better characters than what we get in most sf films, tho, so there's still a chance of seeing something worthwhile.

On the other hand, I have no problems with CG replacing reality. George C. Scott once said that an actor in a movie is of slightly less importance than the key grip (who's the guy that moves stuff around between shots), and if you think about it, it's true. Actors are rarely better than the lines they've been given by the writers, and the situations they're placed in by directors. A good actor is almost always someone who's just doing what they're supposed to do, rather than botching it up... the only reason we think they're important is because they're the only people we end up seeing, once everything's said and done. That being the case, why not go totally virtual?

Behind the TIME, or in front of it?
O Overloarding Double Agentman,

Ebert is nothing TIME magazie ran a FULL PAGE ARTICLE on the Final Fantasy Movie over 3 months ago. Ebert is a little behind.

Rayeth,

Right, but there's a few differences here, the big one being that Ebert's speaking as a film critic, as opposed to TIME or any of the major newsweeklies, who pretty much just parrot what marketing departments tell them to when it comes to technology. (I say this as a devoted Newsweek subscriber, because I cringe whenever they start talking about games.)

Which isn't to say that Ebert's not slightly suspect here: his past reviews have always shown a preference for the latest in the newest and shiniest FX. Not that I can't relate, it's just that after reading his review of The Cell (which other reviewers scared me away from entirely), I do have to wonder about his judgement when it comes to this stuff.

No, not that Bob, the other one. No, I mean, the other other one.
This is in response to your intro on RPG character names. I once read somewhere (and have since accepted as fact) that the strange names are so-called not so much to make them sound fantasy-like, but to prevent problems that occur when renaming them during the game.

For example, if your name is "John", you may change the main character's name to John. However, what if a character appears later on that is also named John? Creates many problems, no? I doubt there any many people out there named, say, Cid...

~Alex M.

Attacking the problem from the other angle, I'd say that this approach ends up hurting games these days nearly as much as it helps them. It's one thing to have fantasy names if you're living in a fantasy world, but if you're going for realism, it's just distracting. Squall was an ordinary type guy with some not-uncommon problems, so why not call him "Steve", or something, to emphasize the character rather than the weather condition he's named after?

Of course, I could just rename the characters myself, but it's far easier to whine and complain about it... more fun, too.

Double Agent: reaching out to non-gamers since... yesterday!
Okay, you've finally posted a topic that I might have something useful to comment about.

This past weekend I went with my wife to see The Grinch....and before the movie we saw a preview trailer for Final Fantasy. This was my first time to see what it's gonna be like on the big screen. I don't really have much to say about the mechanics of the trailer itself...of course it's state-of-the-art wow-o-vision and the techno-geek in me thinks it's gonna be really cool.

However...I'm also getting a feeling that this isn't going to be a big US commercial success. The mood in the room after the trailer wasn't "oooo!!! aaah!!!! wow-I've-gotta-see-that!" It was "what the crap was that?" It's very busy, futuristic, loud, and sci-fi with no famous faces to identify with. You've got some famous voices, but I'm willing to bet that most of the kids and parents in the room there to see Jim Carrey be the Grinch (and there were a TON) either didn't realize or care about the CG.

Perhaps Ebert and friends saw more to get excited about when they made the trek to Hawaii. All I know is that I wasn't too thrilled with the 2 minutes of loud generic sci-fi business that exploded on the big screen before my eyes. I'm still hopeful that they've got a good movie with a cool plot and interesting characters...but if they want to make it a blockbuster they need a better marketing strategy...they need to do something else to reach out and connect with the millions of movie-going Americans who have never heard of Final Fantasy.

Daniel

Standard disclaimer time: the above letter is from an old friend of mine, who's not a hardcore console gamer but knows enough about computers, technology, sf, and other stuff to make his opinion worthwhile from a statistical standpoint: someone who's halfway between this column and the rest of the world, in other words.

And in this case, he hits the nail on the head - the FF movie will have to be more than just a tech demo to get people excited about it, and that's not the impression it's giving off thus far. More than that, Square seems to be caught in a dilemma, because what gamers want out of a movie is likely to be different from what will pull in the masses. Square could make the best movie in the world, but it still might not be a hit with the Titanic crowd.

Of course, the Grinch crowd is probably the wrong market to push this thing on, anyway. I'd suggest something like Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon, if I wasn't afraid that it won't end up even more marginalized than FF. Still, if Toy Story 2 and The Matrix can be successful, there's hope yet.

Hang on, you're not supposed to die just yet...
Secret Agent Man:

Yeah, Mr. Ebert hyping the Final Fantasy movie must be a good thing, because I think people still believe the man's opinion is valid. I just hope that Columbia markets the hell out of this thing, so that my beloved Square stays alive long enough to commit seppuku with a sword called PlayOnline.

-Mar, humming the bassline

Yeah, but think of it this way: what kind of an RPG would it be if there were no daunting obstacles to overcome? (Preemptive strike before someone else gets to it: "A Square game!") If Square does pull this off, they'll be king of the gaming universe, and if not, at least they died trying.

Roger Ebert doesn't know what he's talking about, but it's ok
Double-Agent Jones,

First off, I think a lot of the initial reviews and previews of the FF Movie are going to be done by prople, like Roger Ebert, who have never actually played the game, and are reviewing with refreshingly little context. That said, I think we're in for quite a motion picture. It's a new realm for Square and it's my greatest wish that they are successful in this veture, if only because, how awesome would it be to have a Final Fantasy film series?

Granted, while there is always the feisty old-schooler that says "well, sure it's pretty good, but it's not 'Final Fantasy' enough" I don't think we'll be starved for entertainment. If there's one thing that Square does well, it's delivering quality products.

I can't imagine that some old-schoolers getting upset over the movie not being "traditional" or "old-school" enough. Would even the most hardcore old-school FF freak really want to see an animated feature in 16-bit? I thought not. I think the old-schoolers that disapprove of the film will be so caught up in dismantling the plot and dismissing it as "not traditional enough", that the graphic prowess will simply pass them by, sadly.

I think what I find most distrubing about "old-schoolers" is that they don't recognize the series as a whole as being an evolving and changing beast from one to the next. I believe that this upcoming film is the natural exstention of that. Hopefully, there will come a time when the lines between movies and games not only blur, but they become seamlessly intertwined. When that does eventually come around, no doubt the "old-schoolers" will be longing for, and still whining about, those old by/poly gone days. Personaly, I hope they will still be putting "Final Fantasy" on the label.

~EidosWetsuit

I was a little disappointed I didn't get any response back from the old school crowd themselves about this. (Perhaps I scared them away?) But I've seen enough letters in general from them to speculate on what their answers would have been: that FF was a decent game series that became watered down and lost its roots when it became "mainstream" and started concentrating on more modern plots, that the series has moved from interesting stories about real heroes and destiny to brooding teenagers and confusing psychobabble, and that the FF movie will simply be the final desecration of a loved one's grave.

And while I might disagree with the language, there is a grain of truth in there, much as I hate to admit it. The FF movie's not just an extension of a popular gaming series, it's likely an attempt to lure new gamers in, as well. I doubt we'll see anything like "Final Fantasy: The Movie: The Game", but there will be people inspired to give the series a try after the movie comes out... and gosh, they may just stumble on to FFX, conveniently released in the US a few months after the movie! (I think.) I'm not one of those who thinks RPGs have been hurt in any way by their increased popularity in the PSX era, but it does make you wonder how mainstream the PS2 FFs are gonna get. We shall see...

So wait... the game's set in a nuclear plant?
howdy,

so i was browsing through some snapshots of Persona:Eternal Punishment, and who did i find?

MR. BURNS!!!!!!!!!

yours cruelly,

opultaM Forward

What else can I say but...

"Excellent."

Closing Comments:

Free topic day tomorrow... which is kind of a misnomer, since the topics aren't any more free than they usually are, it's just that there aren't any on this particular day. Although I guess I could provide one if given enough financial incentive... but that would make tomorrow "expensive topic day", wouldn't it? I dunno, just send me some email. Later.

-Chris Jones, in widescreen and Dolby Digital THX

Recent Columns  
12.06.00
12.05.00
12.04.00
Double Agent Archives
Friday. Friiidaaaay. Man, I even like the sound of it. Send me some Friday email.
The FAQ returns, leaner and meaner than ever.