A Pixels Review? Oh no ...

I know what you’re thinking: “Smiles, this is a gaming blog! Why are you talking about movies??” Why yes, my outspoken reader, Pixels is indeed a movie. BUT, the main premise is about video games. I’ve already talked about how video games and movies shouldn’t mix, but Hollywood still hasn’t taken my post seriously. And with Adam Sandler (creator and star of the “critically acclaimed” Jack & Jill) backing this up, what could possibly go wrong?

 

 

Surprisingly, not as much as I would have thought. While not a good movie, it wasn’t a train wreck -- Pixels sits in between ok and meh. We’ll get into some aspects that didn’t work, but let’s first talk about what Pixels did right.

The origin of Pixels comes from a YouTube short with the same title. Basically, an invasion of arcade characters like Pac-Man and Donkey Kong come to life and terrorize the city, eventually turning the entire world into a pixel. Essentially, that’s the plot of the big-screen version … except with awkward sexual tension between Sandler’s character, Brenner, and a recently divorced mom.

 

"Both our spouses cheated on us and I just met you. Let's make out."

I will say that the fight scenes between Brenner’s crew and the pixels bring a unique interpretation of these classic arcade games. The excitement during the Centipede and Donkey Kong scenes captured the emotions I felt when facing off against these great adversaries. Regardless of graphics, a good game makes you feel like you’re a part of the action -- that’s exactly how I felt when watching these scenes. CGI definitely helped, but Pixels does a good job making these classics into an exhilarating thrill ride.

Game on.

I will admit that I had a decent laugh throughout the movie. While some jokes fell flat and were outright stupid, Josh Gad and Peter Dinklage get points for an outlandish performance. The humor goes into some murky territory, but there wasn’t anything that rivaled Jack & Jill’s level of disgust.  

While the action was good and the humor was decent, the storyline bothered me on a few levels. One detail that REALLY bothered me was the dog from Duck Hunt was in this movie. Usually, I’d want all the cameos, but a big plot point of Pixels was that these games were all arcade titles from 1982 and before. Duck Hunt wasn’t an arcade, it was a NES title. There was no way the invaders could have learned about Duck Hunt! In fact, it was mentioned multiple times that the aliens received arcade footage from a NASA probe launched in 1982. It wouldn’t have been such an issue if the movie didn’t place so much emphasis on this plot point.

My face in the theater.

What irked me the most was how the movie itself viewed gamers. Brenner is victorious simply because he’s played the games before. Outside of gaming, everyone believes that Brenner’s skills amount to nothing. The issue is, he BELIEVES THEM! There isn’t any character development that changes this notion -- this idea is reinforced throughout the entire movie. I personally find this absurd! Speaking from experience, I know that skills I’ve learned in video games are completely applicable in real life. Sure, I’m not commanding plant people to gather my ship parts on a daily basis, but I apply the same lessons of time management and decision-making I’ve learned in Pikmin.

Or, you know, we could run around in circles.

It’s unbelievable that Brenner found no way to apply his pattern-finding skills to break away from his life of mediocrity. And the fact that for 30 years he’s been so distraught about getting second-place at the 1982 Video Game World Championship? Please! If I gave up after losing a game, I wouldn’t be writing this today. Brenner is a poor excuse for a gamer. Instead of being a story about never giving up, the climax revolves around Brenner gaining confidence after learning that he was cheated out of the World Championship. Pixels’ plot could have been compelling, but instead is a complete cop out.

Yeah, the story’s terrible. But as far as video game movies go, it’s not half bad. The action's pretty decent, and I'm just grateful the movie wasn't far worse. I don’t recommend that you go see it, but you won’t regret it if you do. If you can stand overgrown man-children and weird fetishes regarding Serena Williams and Martha Stewart, feel free to give this movie a shot. But the original short? That, I highly recommend!

 

 

Stopping Creativity with the Creators Program

Recently, Nintendo launched its “Creators Program” where you can share ad-money for Nintendo-related videos you upload on YouTube. You can either submit your entire channel and receive 70% of the ad profits or submit individual videos and receive 60% in ad profits. Previously, Nintendo had the option (and oftentimes did) claim copyright and either take down a video or receive all the profits from ads. This new move seems fair…in theory. But Nintendo is going down a dark road that will ultimately stifle creative voices and shoot themselves in the foot.

In college, I used to work on this show called Video Game Hour Live (http://www.texasstudenttv.com/show/videogame-hour-live). As the name suggests, we would go on TV and play video games live for an hour. Of course, video games are copyrighted material, and we ran ads in-between breaks without splitting the proceeds with video game publishers. How we managed to legally play games on live TV is through commentary. Basically, since we gave our opinions as the game was played, it functions as a review and was protected under fair use.

James, Jordan and I discuss the intricacies behind "Rugrats Scavenger Hunt"

The live show we had on VGHL is very similar to the many Let’s Play videos on YouTube, which are the targets for Nintendo’s copyright claims. However, there is a caveat that might not protect Let’s Play videos like an hour-long show. In determining fair use, “the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole” is taken into account (http://www.badmovies.org/sideshows/articles/fair-use.html). In a 40+ hour game, an hour wouldn’t necessarily be a substantial portion. But Let’s Play videos usually consist of the entire game. Even with commentary, it might be harder to argue for fair use when it consists of the entire copyrighted work.

So what about video game reviews? Video games are a visual medium, so video reviews are the most appropriate way to accurately judge a game. Reviews are protected by fair use because they are by definition a critique of a copyrighted work. Sites like IGN make money by creating video game reviews, but would they have to share profits with Nintendo?

Let’s use my previous review of Kirby’s Return to Dreamland for example. When I worked there, VGHL didn’t have plans to monetize online videos, but could we without Nintendo taking some profits away? In that review, I gave my opinion accompanied with gameplay. When I discussed how I enjoyed the Super Abilities, I had gameplay showing off the Super Abilities. It’s the very definition of a review, but I do use visual-audio content from Nintendo, which means my review can still be subject to their copyright claim when uploaded to YouTube. Does that mean IGN will now have to share profits with Nintendo if they review a Nintendo game? And if not, what unwritten rule makes them exempt but not a smaller reviewer? The Creators Program does not have an adequate answer to deal with reviews.

Many reviews use gameplay footage. How does that tie in to the Creators Program?

The biggest issue content creators will find is the list of games that qualify for the Creators Program (https://r.ncp.nintendo.net/whitelist/). Many popular series, such as Super Smash Bros and Pokémon, are entirely excluded from the program. Any videos containing these games will automatically be claimed without even a chance to share in the ad profits. You might argue that the list will be updated with new games, but I’m pretty sure no plans exist to release a new game on the N64. Out of the entire N64 library, only 8 qualify!

Super Smash Bros Nope!

Instead of looking at making ad-profits in the short-run, Nintendo should allow content creators to remain unhindered to improve sales and impressions in the long-run. Just look at death-stare Luigi! These fan created videos not only showcased the replay feature of Mario Kart 8, but also drove to higher sales. Other game companies have successfully improved sales and their reputation by capitalizing on user-generated content rather than quashing it. Square Enix released their own template for Final Fantasy XV’s car memes and EA published more copies of Skate 3 after it was featured on PewDiePew’s channel. Encouraging fan creations is key for continued interactions with brands.

My personal favorite FFXV car meme. Screenshot courtesy of Lythero (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MHpsty9LJb4)

I don’t personally plan to monetize Gaming with Smiles, but I feel Nintendo is making a serious misstep and hurting their fanbase. Fair use is already a grey matter, and enforcing it on a case-by-case basis will easily become a legal headache and a PR nightmare. Nintendo certainly isn’t the only company that enforces copyright claims on video game content, but it’s apparent they still haven’t learned their lesson from previous copyright claim fights. Many YouTubers I frequent put considerable amount of work in their work, and it’s a shame the company these content creators support turns its back on them.