Opinion - Merida's Redesign

Over the past couple of weeks, a lot of sites have been talking about the redesign of Merida, which was done in order to 'welcome' her into the Disney Princesses franchise as the eleventh member. She's now alongside 'classics' like Snow White and Cindypants, as well as more recent characters like Mulan, Rapunzel and Tiana. And, well, this whole debate has driven me absolutely batty.

Merida's redesigned dress (pilfered from The Mary Sue)

The new design caused a lot of sparks to fly because Merida's figure had been changed to something  more conventionally attractive (wide hips, small waist), her dress had become even tighter(!) fitting, more low cut and quite sparkly. I did notice that they've kept the split elbows from the film, however, which is very much a good thing, and I have seen notions that her Princesses dress is based off the one she wears at the end of the film. In terms of going against that - it's clearly not her 'daytime' dress (something most of the other princesses share as a theme), so it would obviously be more elaborate. We also see in the film itself that she wears a corset, which goes some of the way to explaining her figure. The final piece of the puzzle was an image of Merida in a slightly seductive pose, looking over her shoulder.

Whilst I agree with a number of the arguments against it (e.g. the 'slimming' of her figure), I think you have to bear in mind that the Princesses line is *highly* stylised, and both Merida and Rapunzel (who is never mentioned in this respect) had to be changed from 3D animation to 2D. This on its own would need to bring changes in order to allow Merida to seamlessly fit in with the visual look. As it stands after the 'reversion' of her design, she sticks out like a sore thumb. I don't agree that her hips needed widening or her waist thinning, I think those two aspects were certainly unnecessary, though it may be worth mentioning she still manages to have one of the widest waists of the group. And this is why I find this argument to be very insular and problematic, as it doesn't actually address the issues at play. Merida's redesign is not the issue here *at all*. It's actually one of the least problematic designs in the range! Have a look at, say, Rapunzel. It looks like she would snap at the waist in a light breeze - Jasmine is no different in this respect, either. How about Snow White's expression, often drawn with a slightly coy "come hither" vibe? SHE'S FOURTEEN. Truth be told, most of those expressions are quite worrying when you really think about them.

Disney Princesses: Flowery are our names, seduction's one of our games.
(Note also how Merida is rather incongruous with the style)

To put it another way, it feels like attention has been placed on a minor issue within the larger picture. This backlash shouldn't just be about the way Merida was redesigned, it should be about what Disney have done with the franchise as a whole. It should be about how the range sexualises a whole range of characters, teen or otherwise. It should be about how they are focused with pushing these same few ideals over and over again - something Brave was heavily praised for going against. Even Mulan and Tiana (The Princess & the Frog) were both films (well, counting Mulan 1+2 as a single film here, as they really should be) that subverted the typical messages that girls are shown every day.

See, I do think there's a good counter argument against Merida's redesign. She is one of the least sexualised characters within that range, and this was something that should not have been ignored with Merida. A major aspect of her story was about how she wished to live her own life at her own speed, and not be forced into anything she didn't want. She wasn't interested in a romantic partner and she was even willing to go against the traditions of her culture in order to remain a free spirit.

But, you know, I think there's a ray of light that is managing to get through some of the thick clouds surrounding this issue. If this range gets more kids watching Brave, Mulan, The Princess & the Frog, then we have to take that as a victory. Whilst the messages are occasionally handled in a hamfisted manner (e.g. Mulan's relationship), they show kids that being true to yourself is more important than what others think, but that you also have to make it happen for yourself. Tiana's struggle at the start of her film is, to me, one of the best messages I have seen in a film of its type. She's not just wishing on a star, she's working to make her dream happen. And those kinds of messages are very important.

To summarise; I do see the issues with the redesign. But I don't see them as being issues that only apply to Merida, and to single her out is to do her and the idea behind it a disservice. We should be looking at the whole range and how those characters are depicted and marketed. Snow White's coyness, the neglect of Tangled's story for Rapunzel. We should not be ignoring Merida, no, but we should not be focusing our efforts on her, because her design is a small piece in a much wider, more problematic system. Getting Disney to revert Merida's design changes nothing in the grand scheme of things. It is a hollow victory, because the wider issue has not even been touched upon.

And yes, I do actually like her 2D design.

Opinion - Armour, Art & Attitude

As a fantasy and science fiction fan, and one with artistic tastes at that, I spend some of my time browsing tumblr, DeviantArt and other sites looking at genre-related art. I'll admit it's typically related to either book covers or art for tabletop/card gaming, as a number of artists do both, but it's almost always fantasy art that I look at. Combine this with my interest in female characters, and you can see where this is heading.

Ouch. (Source)

I could, of course, link to the recent article on Tor.com where boob armour is discussed, albeit without actually adding anything to the debate. I could link to an article by a blacksmith about fantasy armour, I could link to repositories of reasonable armour, I could even link to a tumblr feed about obscene poses women are typically represented in, or any other examples of ridiculous behaviour along those lines. I'd be here all day, week, month or year finding these examples. And that'd still just be a fraction of them.

See, I think it's important to make a point before I truly go into this. It's not about being angry about artists drawing pretty women. I don't have a problem with that as such, as I know there is a definite attempt to present aesthetically pleasing people in most art, hence the perfect figures and faces. I also think that argument could be a bit problematic in itself, as attractiveness is definitely subjective, but it leads me onto a point I think I should make. You can have cute and/or pretty women in armour, no problem. They could be the toughest warriors to have existed. But that doesn't negate - on any level - how armour works nor the point of it. Red Sonja's large chest and striking features do not make armour somehow less functional, thus she can go without it, as an example.

So, in fantasy art you tend to have two main styles of art. You have Realistic & Sensible, and you have Fantastical & Impractical, which I'll refer to, respectively, as R&S and F&I from here on. You will also typically find that R&S art is more anatomically correct, whereas F&I is frequently exaggerated. Let me present two examples, of different styles, artists and genres, to give a rough idea of what I mean.

This first image is titled, ahem, "hottie warrior 4" and it's by an artist on DeviantArt by the name loztvampir3, and you can find it here. As you can see, she is wearing armour that is mostly insubstantial, leaves various weak points unprotected, and she's drawn with a disproportionately large bust. In fact, I think you'd struggle to find anyone with a bust that size and shape who hasn't had extensive surgery, and even then I think it'd be a push.

It is, therefore, easy to put this particular piece into the Fantastical & Inappropriate pool, due to the lack of protection and the over-sexualisation of the wearer.

This next image is by an artist whose work I quite like. This is Donato Giancola's Joan of Arc (a page about this piece can be found here, on Donato's site) and it shows a fairly average looking woman in what is easily a historically accurate set of armour. It is a sober and respectful piece of work, showing Joan as a warrior - a loved one at that - not as a woman.


Of course, this isn't to say that you can't have femininity in fantasy art. You can, certainly. It is entirely possible, and reasonable, to draw armour with what we would consider 'feminine' touches, although with plate armour this - as discussed elsewhere - is highly impractical and typically a trait of F&I styles. This femininity can be represented any way the artist wants, either in terms of the armour itself or with other touches. I'm going to present another two examples and compare them to show how femininity can be represented in different ways. I'm going to use pieces from the same artist, a DeviantArt member by the name of Ruloc, from the same themed set.

These pieces are titled Storm Caller and Kethil Wyvernsbane respectively, and depict two characters that are played by Pathfinder fans. As is clear, both characters are female, but this aspect is represented in two different ways. With Storm Caller, the character's build - though mostly obscured by a steel cuirass - is clearly of a build we'd consider feminine, and this is further compounded by her facial structure and hair style. There is no reasonable doubt that this character is in fact female, yet this is clearly shown without any unreasonable or fantastical approaches. The character of Kethil is represented in what we'd consider a more feminine manner, she's wearing clothing that accentuates her figure and makes it clear she has breasts, and her hair and face again suggest a female character. As she is not wearing armour, the artist - and player - are able to take liberties with practicality, though I'd personally argue the character's outfit is entirely reasonable. But again, this is handled in a modest way by Ruloc, without focusing on any sexual aspect of the character.

This brings me to another point, however. Can armour be revealing, and impractical, without being distasteful? And I think I can happily say yes to that question. This is when it comes down to a matter of taste, and perhaps even respect. I also think one can allow for some degree of handwaving when it comes to cultural sensibilities - after all, some (if not all) Celtic tribes used to run into battle naked wearing naught but their torques and a coating of woad (a dye made from plants), although this would have been a mixture of cultural beliefs and genuine tactics, i.e. putting fear into the enemy. This doesn't apply as much to, say, an Elven ranger in the forests, but there are places where rules can be relaxed a little. The one issue I have, however, is the amount of bare skin typically on show.
Is it not sensible to suggest that the character in question may have a shirt on underneath? Something to sit between the armour and the skin, reducing the chance of chafing or discomfort?

I suppose this brings about a point about context. A work which bends the rules (or even violates them) should be taken contextually. If a character is in a humid, warm forest, it is reasonable to suggest they may wear lighter armours - even show skin - in order to keep cool. If they are in dungeons, caves or even zones of a low temperature (e.g. mountains), it would make sense that they are covered in order to keep warm and dry. They wouldn't reasonably be walking around with bare legs and bare chests - they'd die, essentially. One could argue the same for sandy areas - suitable clothing would be worn to keep the heat and sand away. Bikini armour might be good for getting a tan, but it'd be uncomfortable if the sand got into it!

Finally, I'm going to move on to the 'Attitude' part. To me, this argument is very much a part of the Sexism In Genre debate. It is tied to the way women are viewed, portrayed and represented in fantasy fiction (and, to a lesser degree, science fiction). Without wanting to make huge, sweeping generalisations, I personally find that the vast majority of fantasy art is made to portray women - of any type - in a sexual, attractive manner. It is not about showing how good a warrior she is, it is not about showing her skills, it is about making it clear she is attractive. This can be evidenced by the lack of sensible armours, by the accentuation and exaggeration of the character's busts - contrary to how armour (and breasts) actually work, and by the poses said characters tend to be found in. Whether it's in a comic or general themed artwork, there is a culture of deliberately representing women in these ways, whether they're the heroine or a monstrous creature. They might not have a pretty face, but they'll have perfect breasts (often accentuated in some way) or an attractive figure.

To conclude;
The attitude towards female armour, particularly in fantasy art, really needs to be changed - and now. Women are portrayed, in the majority of pieces, as sexual in some manner. This may be their pose, their expression, the accentuated bosom, or even the armour itself. They are represented in this way at the expense of reason. Revealing armour does not protect - it endangers. Boob-plate armour does not protect - it endangers. Loose hair, loose cloaks and loose clothing do not protect - they endanger. Whereas men are typically shown as bastions of strength and power, women often seem to be shown as if they are merely playing - perhaps why their armour can often look like they should be sold next to the "Sexy Nurse" and "French Maid" outfits. These characters are not treated seriously, and thus cannot be taken seriously. A female warrior would not be concerned about whether her breasts are accentuated by armour, she would be concerned about having her weak points protected - the very point of wearing armour. Armour is worthless if it does not protect, at which point it becomes heavy - and cumbersome - decoration.

Quick Thoughts - "Political Correctness"

Bloody hell, an opinion piece on real-world events. What is this world coming to? Anyway, this should only be short. She says.

This weekend, the Twit-o-sphere went a bit crazy after a self-published-now-majorly-signed author was discovered to have written a blog post full of misogynistic language and attitudes - including the support of violence against the person in question - over what can simply be described as overbearing, tactless public behaviour. It was easy to see that, truthfully, both sides were in the wrong on this, but the much-delayed 'rebuttal' helped feed the problem. The post was eventually deleted after a barrage of comments, followed by an apology, which was then also removed and replaced with a second apology.

Of course, myself and others decided to leap in (as you do) and say that irrespective of the author's intent, the language was utterly uncalled for. This was done via comments on the post itself, some bloggers took to their own sites to offer their views, I did the similar-but-opposite thing on my Twitter feed (i.e. described the author in the same way they described this woman, to make a point), and there were numerous conversations about the author's behaviour. Yet legions of this author's fans descended upon us and defended his actions. We were over-sensitive, this woman needed to be slapped, we were attacking him for making a funny post, so on and so forth. But one term in particular kept cropping up.

We were being politically correct.

Politically correct. What a vile, slimy term. It suggests bubble wrap, cotton wool, patting people on the head, being patronising and so forth. It's a scapegoat term used by people who don't want to admit responsibility for their actions. Instead of the post's author being at fault for using terms like "bitch" and "she-devil", we were somehow at fault for taking umbrage at his attitude. Heck, apparently his comparison of his target to someone on the "autism spectrum" was supposed to be a compliment! Yes, he really did make a comment along those lines in the original post. But apparently "bitch" isn't a gendered insult, and even if it wasn't, the post used terms like "she-devil", and it even criticised her appearance (so she wasn't just a "bitch", she was an "ugly bitch"!).

But do you know what I realised? Whenever someone says it's "political correctness", it's an attempt to shift the blame. It becomes the fault of whomever is offended, not the person who was offensive. To further prove my point, it almost always comes hand-in-hand with terms like "over-sensitive",  compounding the belief that you have a right to be offensive but not a right to be offended. Of course, you do have a right to be offended. We all do. If you find something offensive or distasteful, you have every right to kick up a fuss and say it's not on. How else would we actually get anywhere with improving the treatment of women, LGBT people, those of colour and so on? And can we really, really believe for a second that if the person in question was male, that this post would have been made with the same level misandristic language?

There were plenty of good tweets and posts about this situation - Sam Sykes, for example, made a comment about how if your audience isn't laughing at the joke, it's because you're not funny, as well as pointing out that calling someone a "bitch" just isn't funny on any level. You had authors like Tobias Buckell giving an excellent deconstruction - without having seen the full piece! - that puts some of the actions in context (and I also suggest you follow the link to Harry J. Connolly's piece).

And the worst thing about this? The very worst thing? The author still has not made a public apology to the woman he eviscerated on his blog for everyone to see. You could talk about how it's good he's realised that his blog isn't an insular place where he can openly say what he wishes without people pointing out where he's gone wrong, or that he's taken it down. Fine. But all of that counts for naught when the apologies are directed at the readers of the blog, and not at the one person who truly deserves one.

MINI-REVIEW - Spec Ops: The Line (Yager, 2K Games; PC)

I'm doing a mini-review of this game because, well, it's just impossible to do an accurate review, and for a good reason. Spec Ops: The Line is a deep game, especially for its sub-six hour length and third-person shooter style. Set in a sand-covered Dubai, you play as Captain Martin Walker, the leader of a small team of Delta Force operatives. Your mission quickly changes from the brief, escalating into what is easily one of the best-written campaigns of any modern shooter.

Now, that does sound a little bit like saying being punched in the stomach is preferable to being stabbed in the eye, but Spec Ops: The Line shows that the shooter genre is a perfectly capable and valid vehicle for a powerful, complex story that delves into the human psyche and the morality and ethics of warfare.

What is also surprising is that, removed from the story, the game itself holds up rather well. Whilst it sometimes isn't the prettiest, and this can impact some sections of the game, it is richly detailed, and the combat mechanics, mostly, work as they should. I found switching weapon and grenade types to be a little confusing at first, and the cover mechanics don't quite work as smoothly as they should (which can make some sections harder than they should be), but otherwise it is an expertly crafted game. The audio design is also almost entirely excellent and worth noting, particularly the choice of licensed tracks. I was surprised to hear Mogwai's Glasgow Mega-Snake play during one high-adrenaline section, though the effect was marred a little by no effort to blend the repeats into each other (meaning the song played out, then started again).

I don't really want to talk more about the story, I feel I've said too much as it is. The story needs to be experienced, played through and reacted to. Reading it in a review or even on blogs just doesn't do it any justice, and will even take away from one's own experience.

Spec Ops: The Line is a game I highly recommend. It is an excellent deconstruction of the war genre, and a brilliant game in its own right. Whilst it will normally take no more than six hours to complete, those few short hours are amongst the best you will ever experience in a game of its type.

REVIEW - Tomb Raider (Crystal Dynamics/Square Enix; PC)

This year, Crystal Dynamics and SquareEnix released Tomb Raider, the latest iteration of the highly-successful and world famous video game series of the same name. As has been the case for the last few years, it has not been developed in its birthplace of the UK, but primarily by the once British-owned American studio Crystal Dynamics. This release in the Tomb Raider franchise is notable for numerous reasons. It's a reboot of the franchise with a much darker and more mature aesthetic, and it trades the globe-trotting plots for one set on a single island, and it is also the first Tomb Raider game to achieve an 18 rating in the UK.

Lara is part of a small expedition aiming to make a reality TV show about a mythical Japanese island, and it soon becomes apparent that the island most likely resides in a very stormy section of the sea (it is described as making the Bermuda Triangle seem like almost nothing), and as is to be expected, the ship gets caught in a storm and the crew are unceremoniously dumped on the very island they were seeking. Moments after washing up on the beach, Lara is kidnapped and we start the game trying to escape in order to regroup with the other survivors, and hopefully find a method to escape.

The game itself is not too dissimilar to previous iterations. There are a lot of platforming sections, including climbing walls and buildings, looking for hidden items (relics, texts, etc.), solving fairly basic puzzles and, of course, shooting things. Combat is unavoidable in this game, but the game is certainly built to handle it. You have an ever-increasing range of weaponry to choose from, including a bow, a pistol and a shotgun, and you can use these and the environment to pick off your enemies as you see fit. I, personally, spent most of my time using the bow as it had good range and good damage, whilst also being fun to use. Your weapons are further bolstered by an upgrade system (which uses a generic 'Salvage' currency) and skills gained by spending the experience you earn, as well as specific parts which change the 'model' of your weapon (e.g. the bow will go from 'makeshift' to 'recurve' with its first upgrade). Whilst these customisations don't really have the potential to change the way you play (bar a few non-optional upgrades), it's still an interesting system and one not to be overlooked.

The inclusion of Challenge Tombs is fairly interesting, and whilst they don't make sense on any level, they add interesting diversions to the game. The point of a challenge tomb, simply, is to solve a puzzle in order to gain a map that details the location of the collectables on the map. They typically take no more than a few minutes to solve, and the map does come in handy as it eases the task of finding the numerous relics and texts in order to gain experience. What I found particularly good about these tombs is they're a break from the story, but they also show Lara in a different light – when she talks, she's much more confident in these sections, and it adds depth to her character. There are only a few, however, and their solution will sometimes be related to a section of the game that you have just completed (the first you discover requires that you use the climbing tool that you had just acquired, for example) and can feel a little gimmicky rather than utilising any real player skill.

There is one major, major issue with the structure of the game, however, and this issue has been a major talking point since the first details. The game is heavily reliant on Quick-Time Events (QTEs), which is fairly reasonable to expect considering the cinematic tone they have chosen (more on that later), but they come at flow-breaking times and could often be replaced simply with cinematics. One QTE in particular raised a lot of controversy whilst the game was in development, and I tackled it fairly early into the game. In this scene Lara is confronted by a Russian man who leads a gang of thugs, and it's pretty clear she's almost certainly going to be raped after being caught trying to escape (such a visceral scene itself could be a rape trigger for some, not to mention the 'interactive' nature of it), and the QTE that follows allows you to confront the assailant and ultimately kill him. Any incorrect move and Lara is killed. This scene is incredibly frustrating for numerous reasons, but ultimately the challenge of this scene so early on (particularly with the disconnect between the commands on screen and the controls in the PC version) will almost certainly cause numerous players to have to attempt it more than once, and I feel this contributes to the poor taste of the scene as it will cause some (including myself) to experience it more times than should be necessary.

Thankfully, no other QTE scene attempts this again, but they can still be as frustrating. I browsed the Steam-hosted forums for this game whilst playing, and saw numerous complaints about various major QTE scenes, because they were frustrating to get through. One is even so badly implemented that closing the game and loading it again is necessary to get past due to a progression-stopping bug. Frustration is an emotion I experienced numerous times whilst playing this game, because the controls or the design hindered the experience. There are many sections where the game is unforgiving as they don't allow you to react or move unhindered, and these can cause you to die through no real fault of your own. Deaths typically are represented two ways. In scripted sections you see Lara die in a visceral, violent fashion (impaled on spikes, branches, etc.), and in those where Lara simply falls, she hilariously bounces off rocks and other objects. These actually take away from the game once you see them enough times, because you begin to get used to them, which isn't the intention. There are no punishments for death, either, which I suppose is fair considering the game will sometimes barely acknowledge the player's wish to keep Lara fighting.

The approach to Lara's injuries is rather puzzling, too. The game takes an almost perverse interest in showing Lara getting injured, showing us in detail numerous injuries she takes (a rusted bit of steel that goes through her midriff, a fire arrow that burns her arm, as well as numerous cinematic death scenes), and allowing us to control her during some of her most injured moments, but it seems to only have a fleeting interest in actually having anything to do with them beyond establishing them. Lara routinely wades through filth with open wounds, there are times where she walks slowly as she's clutching her side and even a section that revolves simply around finding some medical supplies (which is promptly forgotten about), yet interspersing these sections are times where Lara is seemingly A-OK and can run, jump and climb like a pro. Her clothing is also seemingly intact throughout all of this, with barely a scratch or a tear showing, though it does get coated in its fair share of mud, blood and grime (which sometimes magically disappears).

Lara's clothing is actually another thing I need to mention. It's pretty clear from the box art alone that Crystal Dynamics want to present Lara as differently from her earlier incarnations as possible. She's no longer wasp-waisted (which ceased pretty much after Legend, actually), large busted or clad in a pair of khaki-hot pants, but is instead somewhat more average looking (for a female video game character, at least), of a more realistic build and dressed in more than a swimsuit with shorts. And I do like this new design, truly, but it doesn't work in this game. The camera all too often takes shots down Lara's top, and I feel this really weakens what they're trying to do with her. It doesn't seem appropriate at all that we should get a hint of cleavage when trying to portray Lara as injured, broken, overwhelmed and stressed, yet at times we get shots that are more appropriate for candid magazines. This is further added to by what appears to be very light use of 'jiggle physics' (I'm sure I've caught her breasts moving out of the corner of my eye) and a pair of trousers that seems to mold itself around Lara's buttocks, not to mention occasional brief periods of animation where her poses are highly feminised or accompanied with girlish grunts/squeaks (and not the kind you get from exertion, it seems). Thankfully the edition I bought came with an outfit that covered Lara's chest almost completely (not even a tiny bit of cleavage!) and seemed less tight around the legs, and once I'd done this the game felt much better to me.

The changes made to Lara (younger, much less confidence, and so on) really make sense in this context. She's not the Lara we knew, yet you can see that she might just grow into that kind of person. Maybe not quite as extreme, but she's still as intelligent, still as dedicated to her work and her friends, and you just know she'll go as far as her earlier incarnations did. A lot of attention has been put into the details with her actions, too. You get a sense of the pain she's in, and the mental turmoil she has, but the way she reacts to the environment can feel very authentic. In various cutscenes, Lara will shiver and shake with shock or due to the cold, and when trying to lift the lids of chests in challenge tombs, her arms appear to shake and strain with the effort. These little details add quite a lot of immersion to the game, though sadly it doesn't carry quite so well into the standard gameplay. There's also the issue of Lara being traumatised by her first kill, even finding the idea of killing a deer very hard, yet within less than an hour of the game, she's slaughtering everything in her wake. Most enemy kills are non-avoidable, and this doesn't quite add up with what the characters try to convey in cutscenes. It becomes an over-the-top bloodbath at times, yet Lara has – seemingly – no remorse over these kills.

On a technical level, I was moderately impressed. The game certainly is pretty, even on modest settings, but the lighting (particularly that of torches) doesn't seem to be entirely realistic and it can leave cave sections being overly dark. The environment reacts fairly naturally to Lara, though breakable objects are obvious to the point of sticking out like a sore thumb, and I felt the world seemed to work really well. The controls didn't seem to be that brilliant, however, neither being reflected in the commands for the quick-time events nor being that responsive at core moments. I died numerous times because Lara jumped at an angle I didn't want her to or because her movements seemed to slow down. The camera also contributed to these issues at times as it could obscure the view and cause you to misjudge a jump. The pacing can also be an issue as it pushes you to go faster, which then allows for mistakes and, as such, infuriating deaths can then occur through small mistakes.

Overall, I did enjoy Tomb Raider, and it is a worthy title for the franchise, as well as being an excellent starting point for its new direction. Whilst some aspects of the plot are tired, overplayed and incredibly predictable, not to mention completely overlooked for the sake of the chosen direction, the writing itself is enjoyable and creates some interesting characters. It feels like there is a lot of development that goes on across a relatively short period of time, and this does help keep things interesting. Aside from a few sections where the game is unbelievably frustrating or prone to bugging, it feels fun and exciting to play. Lara's movements are fluid, the combat works nicely for the most part, and there are environmental aspects that can be exploited to tackle issues. Whilst not the longest game (10-15 hours on average, depending on how much you die, how many collectables you choose to get, etc.), the game never feels particularly empty nor overbearing, instead keeping you on a fairly straight line, but one that doesn't feel artificial or claustrophobic.

I highly recommend Tomb Raider, and I look forward to the sequels. Make no mistake, Lara is back.

(Please note: I played this on the PC with a keyboard and mouse, and finished with 92% completion in a total of 13 hours. I missed no sections of actual content, only some collectables and challenges. I did not try the multiplayer mode)

REVIEW - Dredd (2012)

In 2012, we finally saw the release of the second film based on the 2000AD property Judge Dredd, aptly titled 'Dredd'. In interviews and marketing, there was a clear attempt to distance this new film from the notorious 1995 Judge Dredd, which famously starred Sylvester Stallone as Judge Joe Dredd. I, strangely, have a bit of a soft spot for that film, even if it isn't particularly great and crosses a few lines that it shouldn't have (namely Dredd removing his helmet, and for long periods of time too).

With Dredd, we see Karl Urban take up the mantle of Old Stony Face, supported by Olivia Thirlby as Judge Cassandra Anderson, as they get trapped in a Block War with the leader of the Ma-Ma Clan (called Ma-Ma, played by Lena Headey). Dredd and Anderson are tasked with taking Ma-Ma and her clan down, and along with it the production and distribution of a drug called 'Slo-Mo', in turn making the Peach Trees block safer for its hundreds (if not thousands) of inhabitants.

The film uses slow-motion techniques fairly frequently, particularly with regard to the 'Slo-Mo' drug which is said to make time seem as if it's passing at 1% of its usual speed (so a second is more like 100 seconds), though for obvious reasons this isn't accurately represented in the film. Whilst the effect is visually quite appealing, it quickly becomes overused and focuses more on the ultra-violent sections, themselves being too frequent and too intense to really shock anyone but the most squeamish.

There are a number of scenes which contain unnecessary events, including some forced oral rape (which doesn't exactly happen, but that part of the scene was entirely unnecessary) and the slow-motion crushing of a head, and these are more off-putting than anything else. They add nothing to the film nor the story, and seem to be there for the shock factor. One of the thugs, who is cuffed by Anderson and dragged around for most of the film, refers to Anderson as a 'bitch' in one scene, which is completely unnecessary and frankly a bit tasteless. This film has two strong female characters in the foreground (three if you count the Head Judge), yet it resorts to petty sexism to try and make one of the thugs look more evil.

If there's one thing Dredd does not do right, it lies in its inability to present a consistent and sensible vision of the future. You have these blocks that are 200+ floors high surrounded by much smaller buildings of modern design (although all the roads are magically straight), Lawgivers are wielded alongside weapons like MP5s, and old VW vans driving on the roads with the high-tech motorbikes ridden by the judges. The future shown here is inconsistent and contradictory, there's many examples of progression alongside stagnation, yet these never make sense and, in my opinion, take away from my ability to become immersed within the film.

Whilst the film almost completely ignores the tone and design of the comics, it still acknowledges its roots with a few nods. This includes a Fatty surrounded by food, a punk jacket with 'Drokk' written on it and 'No Muties' graffiti on a wall in the Block, as well as verbal references to concepts like 'Iso-Cubes' and phrases like 'perp' and 'juve'. It's then disappointing that the variety of expletives from the comics make no appearance, instead swear words from our time (most notably the word 'Fuck') are used with reckless abandon. Judge Anderson also doesn't have her quick-witted attitude from the comics, nor is Dredd as ruthless or uncompromising. Their partnership works in this film, but it's not the Dredd and Anderson we've followed for over twenty years.

I don't want to hate Dredd. It's an important film for British sci-fi and British comics, an industry that's hanging on by its fingertips as many of our creators are lured to work in American comics. But in its attempts to distance itself from the Stallone film and be a more serious film, it loses sight of what makes Judge Dredd, well, Judge Dredd. It has none of the satire, none of the dark humour, nothing. It feels like a faintly sci-fi themed action flick with a fetish for over-indulgent cinematography tricks and extreme violence. It's not even exciting!

If nothing else, buy and watch Dredd because we need to support the British film and comic industries. It needs the boost in visibility, and that's why Dredd needs to break even (which it didn't at the box office due to a lacklustre US performance). It's not great, but it is watchable, even if you have to close your eyes during the more extreme moments. Long-time 2000AD fans might be disappointed, but for those with little-to-no experience of the comics, it might just be an enjoyable watch.

Just a little bit of bragging...

What happens when you cross my interest in supporting local comics, love of Fairuza Balk's style and an opportunity to get a personalised copy of a newly-released graphic novel, The Everyday? Well... you get this.

I asked for Arianna (from Adam's own Blood Blokes - it's a promising series!) as Fairuza Balk in The Craft, and what I got blew my mind - I didn't expect it to be *that* great. Oh, and yeah... The Everyday is pretty good, too. I suppose I could recommend it (and I do - really, I do).

Now to wait to see what appears in my personalised copy of Marc Ellerby's Ellerbisms (also from Great Beast)...