Last night’s Revenge brought us yet more twists and turns in ABC’s monumentally and fantastically soapy drama—don’t worry, I won’t tell you what happened—leading me to wonder when they’re going to be ready to throw in the towel on this one. Jack may not be ready to move on, but some of us are starting to get a little frustrated with the ongoing tension. You know what I’m sayin’?

Don’t get me wrong: I am a huge fan of Revenge and I eagerly dissect it in my email with friends each morning after a new episode, but it’s starting to wander big time, and that’s because, like all good drama, it has an expiration date. The question is whether the production team and ABC are going to recognize that, or if they’re going to draw this painfully out in an effort to milk every possible drop of ratings out of it.

So far, Revenge is going pretty strong ratings-wise, and ABC’s renewed it for fall in a pretty plum spot on Sunday nights, allowing it to replace Desperate Housewives and pairing it with the unexpectedly popular Once Upon A Time. (Sorry if this is controversial, but I really can’t get into Once Upon A Time, you guys.) It’s obviously immensely successful because it speaks to the deep desire in all of us to tear out the hearts of our enemies and eat them for breakfast with a little raspberry jam. Er, maybe that’s just me. 

I think I’m supposed to say that Revenge is all about love and passion and emotion and how these things drive us to do weird and horrible things to each other, but I’m pretty pragmatic so I really just watch the show for the revenge and the plotting. Because I do love me some revenge, and Emily’s cool, calculating scheme is interesting to watch as it unfolds (and collapses, as the case may be). It’s sort of like seeing vultures swirling around and taking leisurely pecks now and then rather than just getting down and getting to it. Yes, I just compared Emily Thorne to a vulture.

So, the thing is, this show is ostensibly based on The Count of Monte Cristo, which is also deliciously soapy, I will freely admit, but does actually have a clearly defined endpoint as well as a steadily moving plot that is designed to pull things together in the end and keep you reading. It was, after all, a serial, which meant Dumas needed to come up with reasons to keep people reading when the next installment came out. And I’m starting to feel like Revenge is losing its focus, which in turn is making me lose my focus. And that’s a bad thing, people.

Every week there’s a new attempt to flip the narrative right on its head, which is the point of soapy drama, but the stacking of incidents on top of each other makes it increasingly more baroque and harder to track. The cast of characters is growing and I’m reminded of the too many cooks problem; how many people can we add to this kitchen before it gets totally out of control? Because we seem to be rapidly getting there. There are only so many double crossings, backstabbings, and new players viewers can follow and stay invested in the show. If my Twitter feed last night was any indicator, some viewers are starting to reach saturation point.

Revenge is finding itself in the same place Lost was as it shed fans in later seasons. It’s getting so damn complicated that if you haven’t been watching from the start and focusing on each episode, you’re going to get lost (ha ha). This is not the kind of show you can randomly pick up and still follow and enjoy. As the storyline gets more absurd, we start to wonder if there’s any kind of point here; is there anyone on deck up there keeping us on course, or are we actually just adrift in the Sea of Abandoned Plots, waiting for rescue?

So here’s my advice to Revenge: Quit while you’re ahead. Know your end date. Tighten up your storylines. Map this out and take us on a fun ride to the end. I want to see you go out with a decisive bang when it’s time, not dwindle and fade away into nothing. Maybe you’ve got another season or two in you, but sit down and have a serious think about how you want those seasons to go and make them explosive, driven, and fast-paced.

Because I love this show and I love these characters. Wow do I love these characters. There are so many women doing exciting and sneaky and amazing things on Revenge and I especially adore watching Thorne’s character development as she gets deeper and deeper into this hole she’s digging for herself. And I’m totally in love with Nolan as a character; he’s a man who just gets more fascinating by the minute and I like that the rich playboy has turned into Emily’s ally and the closest thing she has to a real friend over time, but he’s got his own stuff going on too. Though stuffed shirt Daniel kind of bores me, the rest of the Graysons are fascinating. Particularly Victoria, which woah, what is that girl up to half the time?! I don’t even know.

And yes, I like the machinations and twists and turns. Revenge is a labyrinth of delights, but it’s also a house of cards, and it’s getting a bit wobbly ’round the base. Keep me hooked ’til the bitter end, Revenge. I’m begging you.

What do you think about Revenge‘s prospects, gang? Talk to me!

The strangest possible reminder that conservative John Aglialoro is continuing his quixotic quest to produce an Atlas Shrugged film trilogy? Learning that Grover Norquist has just filmed a cameo as a street wino in Atlas Shrugged: Part 2 – Either-Or, a sequel that manages to have an even more unwieldy name than its 2011 predecessor, Atlas Shrugged: Part 1 (if only the word “squeakquel” wasn’t already taken).

At least the Norquist cameo promises a few seconds of oddball entertainment. If only the same could be said for the film’s predecessor. Though I see bad movies all the time, I’ve had a particular fascination with Atlas Shrugged: Part I since its release in April of last year. There’s so much to analyze, from its original, failed attempt to stoke the Tea Party fires with a tax-day release date to fact that its original DVD case was pulled from stores after angering fans by making a very un-Randian reference to “self-sacrifice.” (What I wouldn’t give for the Atlas Shrugged: Part 1 equivalent of Hearts of Darkness, in which a documentarian chronicled every behind-the-scenes misstep during the Atlas Shrugged’s bizarre production and promotional blitz).

But the sequel fascinates me even more, because its very existence represents everything the filmmakers of Atlas Shrugged: Part I were railing against: the failure of individuals to bow to the will of the free market, which, it must be noted, resoundingly rejected the first film. There is a “teaser trailer” for Atlas Shrugged: Part 2 – Either-Or. But it’s one of the dumbest teasers I’ve ever seen:

Newscasters. A clip of Rand from 1959, railing about “welfare states” and “destruction all around you.” It doesn’t even feature the name of the movie; just the Roman numeral columns of the number II, as if the first film was such a massive hit that we’ll all recognize its sequel on sight.

But more than anything, the Atlas Shrugged: Part 2 – Either-Or trailer confirms something I’ve suspected for a long time: conservative filmmakers have no idea how to market a movie. With both politics and pretensions aside, let’s acknowledge the real reason most people go to movies: to be entertained. And by comparison, let’s review the most successful liberal movie of all-time: Michael Moore’s Fahrenheit 9/11, which won the Palme D’Or and grossed $120 million on a $6 million budget. I have many problems with Michael Moore’s gotcha-documentarian tactics, but there’s no denying his skill as a filmmaker. If you haven’t seen it since 2003, watch Fahrenheit 9/11’s theatrical trailer again:

The jaunty music, the stunt journalism, the wacky George Bush clips, the seductive promise of “the year’s most controversial film.” It doesn’t bill itself as a liberal screed; it bills itself as comedy. And it worked.

I was actually one of the few Americans who paid to see Atlas Shrugged: Part I in theaters, owing to both a misplaced sense of film-critic duty and my own perverse curiosity. I expected to disagree with the film’s objectivist politics (and was not disappointed). But I didn’t expect it to be so toothless, so poorly produced, and so ineffective at preaching to its own choir. Conservative or liberal, movies can be political and still succeed – but they also have to remember be movies.

I am wildly excited about Dreadline, an upcoming title from indie developer Eerie Canal. The first effort from the studio features a group of rabble rousing, time traveling, monsters. The characters visit the sites of history’s greatest calamities and wreak havoc on the already doomed souls they find. It’s weird, it’s stylish, it’s ridiculous and sort of horrible (in an amazing way) and I can’t believe I didn’t think of it first.

I knew that Eerie Canal was at work on something awesome given that they were founded by some of my exceptionally talented former colleagues. But I had no idea just how perfectly ridiculous their project was until I saw the trailer a few days ago. You can watch it below:

I caught up with Bryn Bennett and Steven Kimura, the studio’s co-founders to talk more about their new project, going indie, and life in general.

What is Dreadline?
Bryn Bennett: It’s a high paced ARPG, where you play the part of monsters who travel through time, killing the people that are going to die anyway. Think of a mix of Diablo, Freedom Force, and Mario Kart, thrown through an indie game filter.

How did you come up with the name Dreadline?
Steven Kimura: It came to me in a terrible dream.

Bryn Bennett: We googled it, and I think there might be a terrible hard rock band from North Carolina named Dreadline. We may have to get our people on that.

You mention the Titanic and Pompeii in the trailer, what other disaster sites might the monsters visit?
BB: There are so many options! Humans are really an unlucky bunch. The Boston Molasses Disaster?

I really hope the Molasses disaster is in there.
SK: Not the World Trade Center. Please stop asking about that people.

Why monsters, why not cuddly bunnies?
SK: Ghost is a cuddly monster. In the tumultuous wake of the global financial meltdown, we all have to find ways to economize wherever we can.

BB: We did have a bug once where the monsters were rendered really small. Little mummy was the cutest thing ever. We started thinking about moving the game to a more “Muppet Babies” theme.

What platforms will Dreadline be available on?
BB: For right now, PC only. The engine does work on Xbox, but it is tougher to get onto consoles. We are going to release on PC first, and then look at our options. We definitely won’t port it to another platform unless we can find a control scheme that would make sense.

How and when did you decide to form your own studio?
BB: I think it happened at the Middle East (a bar) after our 17th shot of whiskey. I also think we planned on running for congress at that point, but I don’t remember. We just both knew that we had a lot of ideas that we probably couldn’t work on at our current positions. Creating an indie game studio was the obvious choice!

What have been the biggest challenges for you all as you went indie?
SK: We’re completely broke.

BB: I like to think of it as being a starving artist… really sacrificing for our love of games. I also can’t blame any other programmers when the game doesn’t work.

What advice do you have for other indie game makers?
BB: I don’t know if we’re in a good position to answer that, since we are really just starting. There are a number of Boston indie companies like Dejobaan who are much more likely to give a useful answer.

SK: I can say that I love the idea of making indie games, and that people should be as creative as possible since that’s not always possible when working for a larger studio/publisher.

When can we get our hands on the demo?
BB: We plan on being done in early 2013, so we’ll probably start asking people to help us test in late 2012.

Does Frankenstein have a cameo anywhere in the story? (Please say yes).
SK: Dr. Victor Frankenstein, the Modern Prometheus?

BB: (Steve reads a lot.)

I should have clarified, “Frankenstein’s monster.” Sorry Steve.

Anything else we should know?
BB: We’re just crazy excited to get this game out there! Indie development is awesome, and we’re so pumped to be where we are right now. Please check us out at http://www.eerie-canal.com as well as http://www.facebook.com/EerieCanalGames and https://twitter.com/eeriecanalgames

So there you have it. Any other questions for the Eerie Canal crew? Post them in the comments below.

By Dennis Farr

Science fiction is an odd beast, asking us to suppose and imagine a world that is often based off our own, with little bits and bobs changed. When set in the future, there is a certain level of world building that must occur, and to which we must then be introduced. While we will still bring our own thoughts and assumptions into that story, they do not necessarily feed into the story itself, depending on the skill of the author (whose own short-sightedness may make an appearance instead). However, with games, this line becomes incredibly difficult to separate, as the player also becomes part of the authored experience. The writers and designers of a game that entails some level of decision-making can answer many of the typical questions: how, when, where, etc. Ultimately, I am the one who decides why, however.

The idea of this dissonance came via playing Mass Effect, where the male Shepard I played was quite gay in my mind. It was not until the third game that he was able to express his love for a squadmate, however. By this time, it seemed obvious he would have been in the closet, though the game’s writing about its universe makes it clear that being in the closet seems an outdated notion. Unfortunately, I, as the player, was playing in the here and now, and retroactively writing that bit of world building in did not stop what bits of the story I had already filled in for the series.

This idea can be problematic in many regards: talking of a futuristic setting where people are of mixed heritage, because Earth’s default is multicultural, and nationality is no longer really a concern, offering the option to have a POC as the protagonist, and then finding yourself surrounded with white people. If a game is telling my character that she is the norm, but then finds herself not, it is a bit jarring, and leads to the player coming up with explanations—explanations that will conflict with the lore of the game.
Read more