blog.sparetomato.com

You’ve got to hand it to the Daily Star. While their Big-brother-Z-List-celebrity-hyped paper is not always the most newsworthy, it certainly throws up some of the more amusing stories.

Today, they claim that Bruce Willis is set to play commentating legend Murray Walker in a film about the life of Michael Schumacher - inventively titled “The Michael Schumacher Story”.

I don’t know what is more laughable - the thought of Bruce Willis donning spectacles and getting overexcited everytime a puff of smoke appears at the rear of a car (even if it is tyre smoke)… or the prospect of a film about the life of Michael Schumacher.

While Schumacher is without doubt one of the greatest drivers F1 has known, his career wasn’t always the most exciting - and given the fact that Schumacher is purported to be involved, it is unlikely that the more controversial aspects of his career will be highlighted.

Schumacher drove in a period in F1 where his superiority was rarely challenged. If you were to make a true life film about “modern” F1, you’d probably make it during the 1980’s, where you had Senna, Prost, Mansell, Rosberg (Sr), and Piquet (Sr) all fighting for wins, and some of the real characters such as Gerhard Berger.

None of this will come to fruition, except possibly as a made for TV film, and while Murray did comment for the whole of Schumacher’s career, he was not always the greatest supporter of the German.

The main reason Willis has been linked to the role, is simply that he is probably the most famous aging bald actor in Hollywood. Apparently “an insider” claims that in glasses, Willis looks very much like a young Murray Walker. This is forgetting the fact that Walker was not a young man during the Schumacher period.

Last night I gave one of my most disappointing movies a second chance.

The League of Gentlemen was one of my favourite TV series, and its dark humour still makes me laugh. The problem with the TV series was the risk that it would become a parody of itself, with catchphrases and recurring characters who essentially had a limited lifespan.

Many of the characters were one-joke characters, similar to those in shows such as The Fast Show. The difference being that in The Fast Show, the  intention was to produce one-joke, instantly quotable characters, placing them in different situations, delivering a few humorous lines before wrapping up with their punchline catchphrases. In 30 second to 2 minute sketches, this is easy to do, but when you have created a whole world (well, village) that these characters live in and interact in, the characters become harder to write for, and less believable as a result.

The first two series of The League of Gentlemen centred around the characters of Tubbs and Edward, the Local Shopkeepers, their plans to disrupt the building of a new road that would bring strangers to their village, and their attempts to find a mate for their son, David (ironically the developer who was building the road from the first series). By the end of the second series, the characters of Tubbs and Edward had got a little worn, and were killed off. The writers took a bold decision here, as they could have easily took the easy route for a few more series with their ‘Local Shop, for Local People’. For the third series, they tried a new approach with a single story that was told from different angles, introducing new characters while reducing of some of the older characters. Series 3 wasn’t as well received as previous series, but it was obvious that the writers wanted to take a step away from their creations.

The announcement of a League of Gentlemen movie genuinely excited me, but could you turn a half-hour show into a full length movie?

When I saw the movie for the first time, I thought it was terrible. The characters escape from the fictional world of Royston Vasey and enter our world in a ‘Who Framed Roger Rabbit’ way, the humour coming from the fact that these cartoonish characters were interacting with normal people.

The low budget was particularly evident, and the diversion into a story-within-a-story-within-a-story seemed nonsensical, and not relevant to the plot at the time.

I suppose my initial reaction was also coloured by the fact  that two of the main characters were two of my least favourite - Herr Lipp and Geoff Tipps.

Lipp I’ve always found too creepy and his innuendos the least funny. Geoff just rude and not very funny (which I suppose is the point of his character.) However, on second viewing, these were possibly the best selection of characters to use for the movie.

The opening sequence where Tubbs, Edward and Papa Lazarou confront writer Jeremy Dyson (the unseen gentleman, and again, played by someone else) sums up the fact that most of the characters are too bizarre to exist in the ‘real’ world. While the murderous butcher Briss is possibly the most extreme character of the bunch, he is also the most intelligent and perfect as a leader.

Lipp is a one-joke character, and actually has quite a good story arc in the movie, where he comes to realise that he is a one-dimensional character, and craves to be seen as more than a stereotype. His final rant filled with his trademark innuendos is not meant to be humourous, and draws another parallel to Who Framed Roger Rabbit, he is almost like Jessica Rabbit - “I’m not bad, I’m just drawn that way…”

The premise that the actors are fed up with playing the characters they have played for the last 10 years and want to go on to other things, is believable - As parodied in the excellent episode of Father Ted ‘The Mainland’, Richard Wilson (a respected Shakespearean actor) is constantly being taunted by Ted saying his catchphrase from ‘One foot in the Grave’: ‘I Don’t believe it!’. The League of Gentlemen are actors and want to be remembered more than ‘Are you Local?’ or ‘Okey-cokey-pig-in-a-pokey! Good Morning Jobseekers!’.

The League of Gentlemen’s Apocalypse is a tribute to those characters - a fond farewell.

Since this film, the actors have all gone on to do other projects, from Dr. Who to Lassie.

The final twist in the film that it is all in the mind of Jeremy, the one who is not prepared to let go of Royston Vasey is particularly poignant, as well as being amusing in that his original plan for everyone to have tails. The idea that the writers have not all perished leaves the village of Royston Vasey alive as long as the writers stay alive, and we have the possibility to return there one day.

Episode 99 of The Instance included an interesting news item regarding an interview with Activision CEO Robert Kotik.

Electronic Arts has already announced that they are developing a new version of their ‘battlefield’ series: Battlefield Heroes. In a way that has worked out well for them in the asian markets, this version of the game will be free to download, and will generate money both through in game advertising and ‘micropayments’ for items. The indication is that Blizzard (or Activision Blizzard) are looking to do the same in their products.

Naturally, people are worried that they will soon be seeing ‘Coca Cola’ potions in World of Warcraft.

A strong argument against in-game advertising is that it feels out of kilter with the world in which the game is set. Granted, in a fantasy roleplaying game, an advert for a computer manufacturer would look out of place - but what about a game based on Blade Runner - would anyone even notice the glowing neon Atari signs? What if they were Apple iPod logos? The two companies are not that dissimilar in the view that they are household names, albeit 20 years apart.

In-Game advertising and sponsorship is not a new idea, we have seen more and more licensed products in computer games as the push towards realism continues. The first version of Geoff Crammond’s Grand Prix featured the coloured liveries of the F1 cars, albeit without any logos or names on them. Despite this, the distinctive Marlboro McLaren was easily recognisable with it’s Marlboro Flash on the nose and wings. By the time Grand Prix 2 was released, graphics had improved to the point where actual sponsors logos were displayed on the cars. Game modders even took this one stage further, replacing the censored cigarette logos with the real logos to make the game more authentic.

Sports games have probably pushed in-game sponsorship the furthest, as their real-life counterparts also rely heavily on sponsorship. From John Madden NFL to Tiger Woods Golf, where you can even play with Nike balls (complete with Nike swish).

However, sports games are not the only genre to feature commercial tie-ins. In the UK, The original Theme Park game was sold with a tie-in with Midland Bank (Now HSBC) and their LiveCash accounts, aimed at the teenage customers that would also buy the computer game. In-game branding included the Midland logo on the title screens and the year-end statements displayed as “LiveCash” statements.

Quite how successful this was in attracting new customers to Midland Bank is hard to measure, but it is interesting to note that the branding was missing from the port to the Nintendo DS.

EA have stated that in addition to displaying advertising (although apparently not during gameplay) they will allow players to purchase cosmetic upgrades to their characters. These upgrades would apparently not provide any advantage to players.

It is a fine line that game manufacturers tread, particularly in online multiplayer titles. If players are allowed to purchase upgrades to their online presence, there is a risk that a game will get dominated by the rich. MMORPGs have been plagued by ‘gold sellers’, who allow the purchase of virtual gold and items by paying real-world cash for them. Ignoring the ethical arguments around this, it places players with more disposable income in a position where they can gain an advantage over their peers. The only reason gold sellers exist, is because there are at least some people who are willing to take this advantage.

If the only upgrades I could get for my avatar were cosmetic, why would I be tempted to purchase them? If we don’t purchase them, then the profitability of a title goes down, EA will seek to gain more revenue through advertising, and advertising becomes more intrusive, which again puts people off.

If in-game advertising is to work, its success would be in its non-intrusive nature. If all of a sudden the reward for completing a level was a ‘mission complete’ screen with gaudy sponsorship plastered all over it, you would be less than impressed, and the game reviewers would slam the game, accusing  the developers of selling out.

However, what if you had completed a tricky song on Guitar Hero, what if there was a web link where you could download that song directly to your XBox, DRM free, so you could copy it to your iPod? What if after completing a movie-tie-in game, you could download that movie to your Media Centre? What if a discount was offered over the standard DVD or download price? At that moment of elation, you are more susceptible. That is when the advertisers want to pounce. Once you leave the game environment, your attention starts to waver, and you lose interest.

I’m not saying that model will work for everything - a musician in the World of Warcraft Brewfest event would probably not be able to entice you to pay to download an album’s worth of music, and perhaps there are some game genres that could never be seamlessly integrated with advertisements, but do we not already have in-game advertising, and the next step is to make it interactive?

Formula One will be returning to the BBC from 2009 onwards. This has already sparked a huge debate on Radio Five Live, the most popular question being - will they use ‘The Chain’ as the theme tune again?

The ITV theme tunes have been mixed to say the least. The theme for the first couple of seasons was written by Jay Kay, better known as ‘Jamiroquai’. As a huge motorsport fan, I’m sure he jumped at the chance - however his theme tunes did not have the excitement of the bass riff from ‘The Chain’. The tune they’ve been using in more recent years, a kind of tribal chanting theme was an improvement, but still doesn’t have the build-up that ‘The Chain’ has - from the opening Bass Riff to the guitars.

Another strong debate is why F1 should even be shown on the BBC, when they have lost the majority of football, and the cricket. Given Bernie Ecclestone’s notorious business strategies, Formula One would not come cheap.

F1 is not as popular in the UK as football, cricket, and at the moment, possibly even rugby, but I do wonder if the fact that we now have a British driver who is a consistent winner, and probable future champion has influenced the BBC’s decision to get back into the F1 game…

My only hopes are that:

1. They do actually use ‘The Chain’ as the theme tune
2. They keep Steve Ryder as the anchor (Jim ‘The Football’s on in a minute’ Rosenthal really showed how much better Steve Ryder actually was!)
3. They manage to keep Martin Brundle (The best pundit in F1)
4. THEY LEAVE JAMES ALLEN AT ITV!

Formula One’s politician has now threatened that the future of the Australian Grand Prix is in doubt unless the organisers agree to run the race at night in the future.

Bernie Ecclestone often makes threats like this - the British Grand Prix at Silverstone is regularly under the axe, but FOM have only once actually carried out one of its threats, dropping the Belgian Grand Prix from the 2003 calendar. However, this was more to do with commercial rights for tobacco advertisers than any indication that the circuit (one of the best in the world) was not up to par.

Night races are an unknown commodity in F1 - this year sees the first one in history, held at Singapore. The biggest concern is of course, safety. In an enclosed arena where it can be easily floodlight, safety is not so much of a problem - for example, NASCAR often have been holding night races since 1978, despite the fact that like F1 cars, NASCAR don’t have headlights. However - it would simply not be practical at a circuit like the old Hockenheim to place floodlights, as 80% of that circuit was out in the woods.

The old Hockenheim is a prime example of why you shouldn’t do night races - in 2000, it saw a protester marching down the side of the track after scaling the surrounding fences - a job that would no doubt be easier in the dark.

The idea of holding night races is so that they can be screened during prime-time television in Europe. My interest in F1 has waned over the last few years so I no longer wake up at 4am to watch the ‘flyaway’ races in Australia, Japan and now China (and Singapore this year).

This year’s Australian Grand Prix start was also delayed by 90 minutes so that it started at a better time for the Asian market. However, I doubt that an hour and a half would make a noticeable difference to the Formula One fan - only to the TV schedules - delaying the start means that the race falls into a more lucrative TV slot, meaning FOM can charge the advertisers more.

Despite being a global sport, the focus of F1 is still in Europe. The majority of the teams are based in England (even ‘Team Force India’), the majority of the drivers are European and the majority of the races are also held in Europe.

FOM have tried to address that balance, by introducing more ‘flyaway’ races, but I don’t think we’re in any danger of seeing a switch to holding night races in Europe any time soon to provide more convenient TV scheduling for the Asian market. The problem with any global sport, is that it’s always 5 o’clock somewhere, so F1 races will always be held when there is maximum revenue to be made.