I find it strange to think this, but it's almost as if those weeks spent on lsd studying Front 242 and KMFDM albums prepared me for a world in which J.J. Abrams is famous.
When the "ARG" around Cloverfield was going on I noticed something peculiar - that no matter how brilliant the people were working on the "puzzles" he put out there, no one really found anything all that amazing. The web sites were cool, and the footage they released was fun, but after the initial sites were found it didn't go anywhere. It was a very flat puzzle, and there was no satisfying payoff beyond that little bit of extra depth to the film.
I never bothered watching Lost, but I gather it's a lot of the same. Sound and fury, signifying, and leading the way, to nothing more than Don't Touch That Dial!
Recently they let him edit an episode of Wired all about games, and I've noticed some familiar tactics. He tells you it's a game. There's clues, really there are, and they <i>mean something. </i> Some of the puzzles really are solvable, and are kind of cute. Some of them... well you get the sense that they are insoluble by me not only because I'm an idiot, but because they aren't really solvable. They don't lead anywhere, they just create the illusion of a puzzle.
Tonight he did the same thing on The Colbert Show. Buried within the episode are clues that reveal the details of Stephen Colbert's trip to the Persian gulf. Then there are numbers, symbols... the illusion of a puzzle.
Look I spent a lot playing the role of the Electronic Monk, and I learned a few things. Most importantly, there is a time to stop questioning and a time to act. But next in importance is that just because I can be convinced there is a puzzle doesn't mean there is anything there to find.
Sorry Mr. Abrams. I kind of like that one thing you did that one time, but I'm having a hard time convincing myself that you learned any mastery over the tricks you pretend to understand.
When the "ARG" around Cloverfield was going on I noticed something peculiar - that no matter how brilliant the people were working on the "puzzles" he put out there, no one really found anything all that amazing. The web sites were cool, and the footage they released was fun, but after the initial sites were found it didn't go anywhere. It was a very flat puzzle, and there was no satisfying payoff beyond that little bit of extra depth to the film.
I never bothered watching Lost, but I gather it's a lot of the same. Sound and fury, signifying, and leading the way, to nothing more than Don't Touch That Dial!
Recently they let him edit an episode of Wired all about games, and I've noticed some familiar tactics. He tells you it's a game. There's clues, really there are, and they <i>mean something. </i> Some of the puzzles really are solvable, and are kind of cute. Some of them... well you get the sense that they are insoluble by me not only because I'm an idiot, but because they aren't really solvable. They don't lead anywhere, they just create the illusion of a puzzle.
Tonight he did the same thing on The Colbert Show. Buried within the episode are clues that reveal the details of Stephen Colbert's trip to the Persian gulf. Then there are numbers, symbols... the illusion of a puzzle.
Look I spent a lot playing the role of the Electronic Monk, and I learned a few things. Most importantly, there is a time to stop questioning and a time to act. But next in importance is that just because I can be convinced there is a puzzle doesn't mean there is anything there to find.
Sorry Mr. Abrams. I kind of like that one thing you did that one time, but I'm having a hard time convincing myself that you learned any mastery over the tricks you pretend to understand.
Also, I have a new number, not sure if I gave it to you. When you next find yourself in socal, let me know. We'll have to grab some food ro something.