October 29, 2007 -
Whatever one may think of his controversial Super Columbine Massacre RPG game, Danny Ledonne knows a thing or two about video game controversies - and about film making. He is, after all, a film maker himself, having created a movie about the uproar surrounding his game.
While his film screened at the Game City festival in Nottingham last week, Ledonne turned his attention to Spencer Halpin's Moral Kombat, which will be shown at the vgXpo in Philadelphia on Saturday. Of Moral Kombat, Ledonne writes:
Full Disclosure Dept: Spencer Halpin is the brother of Entertainment Consumers Association president Hal Halpin. The ECA is the parent company of GamePolitics...
While his film screened at the Game City festival in Nottingham last week, Ledonne turned his attention to Spencer Halpin's Moral Kombat, which will be shown at the vgXpo in Philadelphia on Saturday. Of Moral Kombat, Ledonne writes:
By the time my DVD drive had spun down as the disc reached its end, I had summarily concluded that Moral Kombat is beautiful and engaging. More importantly, it is a summarily decisive blow to the anti-game critics of the world.
It seamlessly blends together the history of the medium, highlighting the colors and textures of early videogames, the controversy-sparking 16-bit era, and the graphical sophistication of the modern platforms... The film is a visual treat from first frame to last...
If its detractors have anything to say about it, it will be that the film is too condensed, too hurried, too visually complex, and too eager to delve into the videogame violence issue with virtual guns blazing.
So please don't judge a book by its cover and don't judge a film by its trailer on YouTube.
Full Disclosure Dept: Spencer Halpin is the brother of Entertainment Consumers Association president Hal Halpin. The ECA is the parent company of GamePolitics...
Comments
Re: SCMRPG Designer Reviews Moral Kombat Film
R. D. Stevenson and R. J. Wasserzug published an article in Nature 364, 195-195 calculating the upper limit to an animal's power output. The peak power over a few seconds has been measured to be as high as 14.9 hp. However, for longer periods an average horse produces less than one horsepower.
Cuban Missile Crisis. It had to be about then.
Considering that he has the legal power of a castrated shitzu right now, due to him blatantly insulting judges, lawyers and police officers, (we have proof positive on this too, and we 'crack addited gamers' can cite it on command), I think that there is no chance in the home he calls hell that said Alabama case would let him within 4 furlongs of the courthouse.
@Senile laywer from Florida
Of course he was appreciative. You are the best reason for people not to listen to you. In fact, you hurt your own case more than anything we can say and prove, because you have an impulse control problem and tend to say every mean thought that comes to mind. Perhaps you should swap religions, because I get this crazy feeling that Jesus is frowning on you big time. Perhaps you should try Scientology, they make up crazy-ass stuff and try to sell it as fact too.
Danny also made a movie that JT was involved in, it was about the controversy surrounding Super Columbine Massacre, that's what JT was talking about.
@JT:
When this movie comes out, I am going to show it to everyone I know and let them form their own decisions. Do you honestly think that your insulting words, bending of the truth, outright lies, lack of any evidence and pro-censorship attitude is going to win anyone over? Then again, you think that the Alabama case is somehow a victory for you despite being thrown off and disbarred in Alabama. Selective thinking eh Jack?
Jack Thompson in one word: Fail.
When in 2008? You used to say that it was January--did the Stricklands' attorneys (not you, for reasons which are at this point obvious) or Sony/Take-Two get it pushed back?
Also, why don't you come back when your FORMER clients have dodged summary judgment; your lil' First Amendment "victory" notwithstanding, they've still got an uphill battle on the Defendants' eventual MSJ.
Mark Standridge, attorney (and still will be in 2008)
When you make a trailer so clearly biased, it's gonna get attention. Some good, mostly bad. if they had wanted people to respect the film, sensationalizng wasn't the way to go.
Still, should be interesting to see
Jack Thompson was in a movie that is a "decisive blow" to his own kind? Wow.
I'm actually interested in seeing this movie. If they go about it in a very straightforward way and not some "violence in games is evil" (scares me that JT is in it) then I'd be interested to see this all. However, a few things bothered me.
1) The flight sim thing they mentioned. They trained at actual pilot schools, not on a computer program. They took a course and got the training. They weren't just playing some computer game. To say that a child with a violent video game is anything close to that is disgusting.
2) The continual mention of children with violent video games falls back on one solid principal. Where are the parents? No matter what situation you push, there is always a case of "where are the parents" involved. Jack Thompson pointed out that a kid could easily just go to a friend's house to play the game if his parents wouldn't buy him the game. That still brings about "where are the parents" of said friend. Worried about the movie's stance on that.
3) If this movie points out the fact that mature games are mature games for a reason, and that they should be played by mature audiences only, and that children in no way should be playing these games, thats fine. If they are pointing out violence in games affecting children, and are therefor stating that violent games are completely bad, then I'm going to be disappointed. Truly, that is why the game is M for Mature. Mature is not some code word, its point blanc, plain and simple.
4) It sounds like the movie can't decide between "violence in games" and "where video games will lead us to next". With the title, I'd like to think the first is what they are going for, but who knows.
I still plan to see this, and watch my dog bitch at the screen when she hears JTs voice. Even my dog is against him...
Also, not to be off-topic, but what's going on with the first three posts in this thread? And does GP have a policy against posting under a real name that is not that of the poster?
I got the same vibe. That trailer paints a picture of "THE EVIL OF COMPUTER GAMES IS UPON US!". I really don't approve of it. Sorry but if it is what the film is about, then the film is going to make me very angry. If it is not, then the trailer is misleading. Either way, is that really the sort of teaser Spencer Haplin thinks is appropriate? Simply saying "Don't judge a film on its trailer" isn't cutting it.
Why is it not for us? Because we already know what the documentary is about. We already know it supports our views. We already know the good points the documentary will provide.
But do the anti gamers know this? They don't. Most of them don't know out of ignorance. The only way to get THEM to hear our views via the Documentary is to make the trailer as bias as possible, pandering to the anti gamer crowd so that they'd be eager to watch said documentary, only to find a surprise when they DO get to watch it.
Not all will be convinced of course, but at least they'll see things the way we see it.
Color me disappointed...though I have not seen it yet (still not going to VGXPO because I don't want my money going to certain people).
DarrelBT
Your is right. This is a way to get our message our there. Even if it is highly bias we will still get heard ever so slightly. The sad part is most gamer don't vote. The age bracket of a gamer is 15-25 and most in that age bracket are ether to young or just don't vote. So our message isn't heard by the people that matter.
Also, having Jack Thompson in a film (Spencer's or mine) does not invalidate its stake in being progressive toward videogames as a medium; it means reflecting the spectrum of debate on an issue. It is said that if one does not understand his opponent's argument, he does not understand his own. While most GP readers are quite aware of Jack's antics, most of the people I have shown my film to (non-gamers) have never heard of Jack Thompson before. I would much rather people meet Jack in a film that contextualizes his rhetoric than on MSNBC as Jack whips up images of Columbine and "murder simulators" while remaining relatively unchallenged. Wouldn't you?
Absolutely. It annoys me every time he's on TV, and they let him just spout his BS, and never call him on it. Misquotes studies, fabricates facts about government policies, and anyone who counters him in a "debate" is more often than not unable to speak their side because JT just starts talking over them...
I think the film IS pro game if for no other reason than it presents both sides of the debate accurately. I believe when the issues are laid out on the table in a balanced way, it is clear that videogames (even violent ones) are a welcome addition to our culture. Not everyone walking out of the film will conclude this but I believe most will.
I think it's pretty obvious that Jack in particular is willing to do any media that comes his way. He feels validated by being put on 60 Minutes, Fox News, etc. If you couldn't win court cases, how else would you measure success, right? In some real sense this entire debate was STARTED by senator Lieberman, David Grossman, David Walsh, Thompson, and others... so really the burden of proof is on them to make these appearances and lay out a case against a form of entertainment that clearly enjoys commercial success unabated by any "moral outcry." In my estimation their rhetoric is unconvincing but of course others will disagree.
As anyone who follows this site and looks at the evidence should know, if you present both sides clearly, the anti-videogame squad does start to fall apart, due to a lack of evidence on their part.
I mean he'll bitch, whine, and shout 'hooah' out of his ass about it, but it won't negate the fact that he just got owned on a level playing field.
the trailer still seems pretty one sided.
Thanks for clarifying your take on the film. I guess one could argue that the opinion you take into the film is likely what you take out of the film?
Knowing this ahead of item we should try to think up ways to head it off before it starts.
Actually I wonder if it much matters. JBT has proved non-effective in his attempts verse games and gamers to date. There will those that will blame games (or whatever is popular) on the woes of the world. These are the same ones that sue because they spilled hot coffee on themselves by being stupid, or ate Big Mac's every day for years then sue over getting fat.
At what point did a sizeable portion of our race stop taking responsibility for their own actions? Are games to blame? Doubtful to the point of No. Is our society to blame? Errr tougher question... check with me next tuesday.
1) the film is very well crafted to represent many diverse points of view
2) Jack carries his media appearances in very high esteem
Gamers have every right to be skeptical because media outlets have burned them so many times before. However, as I have said, by showing the beautiful, the ugly, the violent, and the benevolent aspects of gaming, the effect is one of balance, of diversity, and of freedom of choice. This is valuable for gamers and detrimental for those who denounce "the industry" for what amounts to a few games from a spectrum of artistry.
It is tempting for me, as an MFA film student, to thoroughly analyze the film and argue for the film's "decisive blow" against video game critics. I believe it can be done. After the film, you will likely remember the insightful words of Lorne Lanning and Henry Jenkins. You will likely forget (or write off) the gloomy prophecies of Jack Thompson (whose "Columbine to the factor of ten" has become a staple in his routine).
The music reinforces this; Thompson, Grossman, etc. are given "bad guy music" while the uplifting score elements go to Lanning and Jenkins. This point is not subjective; the musical notation can be objectively demonstrated. The film is telling us how to feel about the characters. We aren't led to believe that the critics of the game industry are going to succeed in stifling or regulating the medium. The fact that so many games are shown ("great games... and lousy ones" as Lowenstein puts it) is a clear indication of this. The mention of the moral panic over comic books further puts the current debate into historical perspective.
So speculate as you may... but just know that I for one was not disappointed by 'Moral Kombat' - in my estimation one of the first works of visual non-fiction to truly give gamers something to cheer about (as opposed to Fox Noise, Dr. Phil, and the rest of the garbage heap).
The only way you'd see it fair is if all the film was was you talking about how games need to be banned.
So, everyone who acts like an ass got bad guy music.. Now that's good..
No, i'll tell you what they should have used. Le Marche Des Gendarmes.
Hilarious song.
Finally, apparently Danny doesn't know what the Hell he is talking about my alleged inability to win cases. The Alabama case featured on 60 Minutes is set for trial in 2008, and we convinced the Alabama Supreme Court that the First Amendment does not protect the sale of mature-rated games to kids.
When you are an industry shill like this guy, then apparently your ability even to view a fair documentary and recongize it as such goes out the window. How sad. How predictable.
Oh, and Danny, give me call right now. You've got the number.
As for the Alabama case, you haven't won it, you got thrown off of it, and it isn't over yet, so until that case is resolved, and making the massive assumption the Judge even buys the ridiculous concepts you are putting forward, then you might have one under your belt, but right now, the score is zero, and, to be honest, I greatly doubt that number will be heading upwards any time soon, Alabama or not.
So a win for you is the fact that the case has not been thrown out yet? Sounds like you. In reality land, a win is when a judge rules in favor of your arguments.
As for Danny's opinion, he said it himself that the film is very fair. He said that any reasonable person will walk out of the film with a batter understanding of the video game industry and the violence debate. That is why it is pro gaming. Unfortunately, you have selective hearing and eyesight and can't comprehend those facts.
E. Zachary Knight
Divine Knight Gaming
OK Game Devs
Random Tower
Also, as an aside, what exactly does the Judges' opinion of the First Amendment when applied to games have to do with the argument that GTA somehow 'programmed' the criminal? Are you telling me that, after all these years dealing with this expensive and time-consuming case, the only claim to success you have is that the Judge has stated in his opinion that games aren't First Amendment protected (bearing in mind that will probably get shot down if it ever got to appeal). That's it? And I'm not even certain about the facts in that, I've been seeing 'Thompson Spin' for years, so I'll believe the details even on that small morsel until I get some non-Thompson clarification.
Um...Danny Ledone didn't make Moral Kombat. That was Spencer Haplin. Can you please clarify on this, or are you really that stupid?
Also, you're not fooling ANYONE about the Alabama case. You were THROWN OFF and DISBARRED in the state. Not only that, your dickhead behavior is why the Alabama Bar is proceeding against you.
Respond now or you'll wish you did.
That said, I'm rather intrigued about this film. It's one of the (Very) few documentaries that deals with the subject of violent games without looking at ALL violent media.
Anti-gaming profession shrink? Not quite, that particular head shrinker had very little first hand experience in that area, she was more familar with other teen-age issues, but not games in general.
So it's kinda like having a French pastry chef make a German roast boar... it just never turns out right...
The documentary may not be pro-game industry, but it's definitely not anti-game industry. Perhaps this is what he meant by a blow to critics of the game industry; game industry critics can't handle anything that paints gaming, gamers, or game developers as anything but collectively bad.