Saturday, April 16, 2011

The Comic Book Question. "To Live Action or To Not Live Action?"


Growing up in the late 70's and 80's I had my fair share of comic book films.  
Many of us now are living and growing up in what can be considered reboot heaven.  In some cases a Renaissance.  When you consider Amazing works of cinematic art like "The Dark Knight" and the placement of Film Operas when you actually combine the epic puzzle that is "The Avengers" with all the pieces that have gone into making it.  Iron Man, The Incredible Hulk, Captain America: The First Avenger and Thor.  Also leading toward a Nick Fury film.  

You almost wonder how it is possible for comic films to fail when being made in this time.  Whether the failure is financial or in artistry, it's a failure none the less. And it does happen, quite often.  I recently, during my night owl habits, while many of you were sound asleep, caught "DareDevil" on cable.  I had also recently caught "Ghost Rider".
It was mostly in the background, while I worked, I wasn't actually watching this one.  I think it's atrocious.  After watching DareDevil I decided to rewatch "Elektra".  Why?  Well, Jennifer Garner is easy on the eyes.  I was also curious, because it nagged at me.  She got her ass totally whooped by Bullseye in the DD film, but her own, she was an insane feral force of martial prowess.  I wanted to go back to understand the producers concept of the character, her development and her tie in to the DD story as well as her comic book roots.

I noticed they did follow the comic story, as closely as they could.  So why did that movie generally suck?  

I then started to think about other comic book movies.  The one offs, and the older films that were considered horror fests of fail.  Films like Nick Fury: Agent of Shield that starred David Hasselhoff.  A film force that I
can only imagine is acceptable if you are smoking crack or perhaps sucking on multiple joints to maintain a level of "Phuck it"...To be somewhat forgiving, it was a made for TV movie and the Hoff has a solid resemblance to the comic book version.

Some folks may even remember the original "Punisher" film from the 80's, it isn't that good.  but the problem with the Punisher is that Hollywood portrayed him all wrong.  Look at Batman.  Something, rebooted many times over 50 years, the bulk of which in the last 20. You have the Adam West Batman.  Or, as I call it, "Shatner Detective Knight". You have the Micheal Keaton Batman, which was relatively Dark and aloof, socially awkward but he wanted to reconnect.  Almost defeated in his attempt.  But he remained dark, hidden.  Contrived.  The Val Kilmer Batman.  The Gadget fiend.  This film was only saved by Jim Carrey's amazing performance of Riddler.  Tommy Lee Jones was
The George Clooney Batman.  Clooney is a great actor, he shows emotion well and even behind a mask his body language and facial expressions demonstrate a lot of his heart.  That is not Batman...Worst possible choice in casting. To make it worse Arnold, which conceivably could make a solid Mr. Freeze, was showcased as the lead in the film, and his one liners were so awful it made the movie unwatchable.  I completely set blame for that "tour de farce" of films on Schumacher.  Thankfully, Christian Bale and Chris Nolan understood the comic on many levels, including the character and the psychology behind the mask.  Brought it back to life brilliantly, only to blow us away with Heath Ledger's Joker in the sequel film...

I see this type of problem in a lot of the comic films we watch.  Let's go back to Punisher for this example.  Hollywood takes the concept of this character and focuses on the ultra violence.  The wow factor of someone like him with no powers and is able to survive horrendous odds and situations.  The Thomas Jane version of the film almost caught the emotion behind the man, his mental break.  Ray Stevenson was a robot.  A total killing machine.  Dolph Lundgren had a glimpse of Frank Castles Insanity.  The sewer scenario was almost perfect until the film almost made it feel like the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles".  Each version had the right glimpses, but they were separate and in vacuums. We needed to see a man apart, who in his grief, lost his mind, fractured.  Struggling to regain a piece of his life but torn with the need to kill his enemies, to punish them for his pain.  The Thomas Jane version failed in this because it also made him to touchy-feely, humanized too much, more than likely a directorial or producers outlook on a happy ending. I enjoyed that film, but as a piece of entertainment not as a piece of canon.  Chances are why a reboot come so quickly.  

Let's look at Ghost Rider.  I felt throughout the film that the special effects were second rate, which didn't make sense.  Even with a mild amount of origin story, I felt no connection at all, and Ghost Rider is one of my personal favorite characters.  I loved Sam Elliot, and felt he was the strongest aspect, but the writing was simply too atrocious. It felt like the Ghost Rider version of Constantine.  The Son trying to take over from the Father.  It was a cliche story to use for this rich and deep comic character.  

How about Ang Lee's Hulk.  Personally, the story was stranger than fiction.  Nick Nolte was extremely forced and the ending of the film was awful.  But everything upto that was actually pretty amazing.  I think most people were not used to seeing the hulk using all of his abilities.  


Most people are not accustomed to seeing him running like the flash or leaping across states in one bound.  It was Ang Lee's vision, and it was stated as different from the beginning.  However it was necessary to reboot it for the Avengers...well, twice...  The Norton version is pretty good and entertaining, although it has some cheese to it.  I wish they would simply go crazy and epic.  If you want more monsters and creatures throw in the Leader and his weird hulk creations.  Hopefully after the Avengers, we can see a sequal to that affect.  Now that Mark Ruffalo is rebooting it.

How about DareDevil and Elektra?  Both films were mildly entertaining.  I actually liked Bed Affleck for Matt Murdock.  I thought he fit the role really well, and looked great in the suit.  Jennifer Garner was not too bad, but the contacts took away the focus.  You knew right away they were fake and that is an issue.  I'm sure someone else could have fit the role with natural eye color.  The scene with him first meeting Elektra, the awkward fight in a playground.  That was quite masterfully bad.  Really...  Collin Farrell, who could have been an interesting Bullseye, I am guessing he was told to be over the top,  was doing that all on his own.  I still blame the director and producers for not noticing he looked stupid and obnoxious.  I don't mind when the studios get creative and use a black guy for a white character or vice versa, point in fact, Sam Jackson is amazing as Nick Fury.  Idris Elba looks amazing as Heimdall, But The Kingpins character was killed by Michael Clark Duncan.  


There are so many others that could have fit the role properly.  Don't get me started on Halle Berry and her Catwoman! A movie that should have never been made.  If they really wanted such a thing, they should of looked at Vixen, she could have fit that character more fittingly.  Perhaps Feral from the X-Force, on the Marvel side.   

Going back to "Elektra" it was simply an ok movie.  It was more tit for tat than a solid comic book film.  Possibly why we havent seen sequels are any endeavor to reboot it.  It's more the," leave that in the past and never speak of it again" type of project.  But a reboot could be possible with the 2014 reboot in pre-production for DareDevil coming up.

Creative license aside, directors and producers want to put their signature on things.  We need to have some accuracy with how live action portrays the fidelity of characters.  Perhaps Watchmen was very specific and done in such a pulp style that it beautifully handled itself in a live action setting.  If I remember correctly it was called the best comic book adaptation ever made by many critics.  It was unfortunate it didn't do as great during its opening in the theaters.  I loved the film.  Perhaps it was it's R rating that held it back.  Which is the common fear in Hollywood for most projects now.  They want as much audience as possible. 

There are many comic films I can think of that were horrid and did not stand the test of time.  I can also think of some that were insanely cheesy yet resound as cult classics.  Like Flash Gordon.  That is a film I love to watch, still to this day.  Perhaps it was Max Von Sydows portrayal of Ming the Merciless (who is supposed to be an "Asian'ish" Character).  However, Ming is an alien, I guess they can get away with it???  Mr. Sydow was still awesome.   So I won't give him any beef.  When you consider films like Star Wars accomplishing what it did in 1977 to see a film like Flash Gordon, at that time.  You couldn't help but compare it and say "This looks like shit."  But we somehow loved it.  Maybe it was the catchy music...FLASH!!!! AH AAAAAH...

O.k. I'll spare us the singing.

So what makes a live action film stand out?  What makes us love it?  I think a genuine understanding of the characters is a huge help.  But most of these films are trying to reintroduce themselves to this generation.  Perhaps people that know the characters, just don't know their stories.  I like how Disney handles themselves in this respect.  They hide certain things for a period of time, then they re-release it again.  It is a system I would have thought not to be viable were I around in the 60's.  But it works, beautifully.  Only a few of their properties they allow to be remade.  Now they are at the Helm with Marvel and I think the direction being taken is amazing.   What is possible with other films under their control?

How about X-Men? The Fantastic Four?  I am a huge fan of X-Men.  I have been reading those comics since I was able to read.  I also love Fantastic Four.  Because they tend to overcome insane situations. Specifically, Galactus.  The "Rise of the Silver Surfer" could have been such an amazing film.  I say could of.  The casting in this and the first film were absolutely atrocious.  I love Jessica Alba, but she made no sense in this role.  Micheal Chiklis and Chris Evans are the only saving graces for the film. They matched the characters and played them well.  Chris Evans might as well have been the star.  The Surfer was a fantastic fit and he was done beautifully.  But there are too many fundamental problems that would have pulled the fans away from the film.  While there storyline followed, somewhat closely to the comic book.  The translation to live action was too rushed.  The basic changes to the story ignored the concepts of the character.  Understandably so, Silver Surfer could kill anyone on earth from light years away.  However the translation and use of knowledge and technology was on the same level as in GI JOE.  It just wasnt believable.  You find yourself questioning the film instead of allowing yourself to enjoy it.  That's bad.  

Now we also hear the rumors about X-Men sequels continuing where we left off on "Last Stand".  Fans have already up-roared over the horrible mish mash of comic stories, the misuse of the Phoenix/Dark Phoenix Saga.  The killing or, disintegration of Scott Summers.  The Death of Jean Grey and Professor X.  Granted, I'm sure the allusion to his return and the potential return of Jean is there.  But I think the damage has already been done.  Why is this director being given the opportunity to continue?  

More so, the Reboot of Ghost Rider, reboot, operative word.  Is bringing back Nick Cage for the role. Why?  He was part of the reason many of us hated the film.  I'm a purist in the sense that I will go and support the films and watch them all.  Whether I think they will suck or succeed.  I will point them out to those that will like them and those that will hate them.  In the end, much of Hollywood is stuck with the thought "we have to change it a bit, or you will know the outcome"

Hi Hollywood...Yes, we don't mind you changing the stories.  But, here's the thing.  You're not comic book writers.  Stick with the stories we know and love, focus in on nature of the characters and you'll be fine.  

I guess in the end it's the World of Warcraft business model. I have to throw a gaming reference in there...WoW caters to everyone, it stems from beloved characters and stories to attract the hardcore, but it makes it more general so anyone and everyone can understand and enjoy it, versus the Final Fantasy Online model that is more for a very specific and small clientele.

We will make this true to its nature and story, we won't fuck with it, because it has enough of an audience and enough background to draw in the numbers we want.  Like Watchmen or The Dark Knight.  Art over Bullshit politics.  They come or they don't...

I could get into Spider-man, which started the amazing jump into high quality Comic films, in my opinion. But I could also nerd rage on the fact that for all their awesome work they left open real stupid plot holes.  For example.  We can accept that Spider-man is amazingly strong and powerful, he can lift about 20-50 tons.  


We see it when he stops a speeding train with his webs and is ranked and stretched until he completely stops it.  His strength is not in question. So why then when someone of such strength punching a much older man, who has no real powers of healing ability, does his head not explode.  Or at the least cause hemorrhaging of such devastating nature he dies as a result.  

Perhaps the concept that is also not in question, the black suit, causes him to lose control.  Combined with the basic concept that his strength is not in question.  When he turned to slap Mary Jane, which is in itself a loss of control.  Why did her head not completely spin on it's access. Loop holes that just don't make sense.  

But the movie is enjoyable and fun.  Perhaps we can forgive the third installment for the superior first and second films.  

However you slice it.  Comic Book films are dominating Hollywood, whether it is the main stream characters we know like Wolverine and the X-Men or lesser known comics like "The Losers".  We will continue to see them, good and bad.  Some will derive their cult followings, other will fade away as horrible mistakes, like X-Men Origins: Wolverine (I can't start on this one, I love it and hate with equal levels of fail).

I hope you are watching all kinds of comic book films, don't just watch what is being put out there now. Look for older material, look at serials from the 40's and the 50's.  Go buy the Adam West Batman series.  Sit down with some friends, some popcorn and watch the cheesy films of our comic book past, essentially, some of them paved the way for the better versions we see today.  

I look forward to re-watching the Incredible Hulk with Lou Ferrigno and Bill Bixby, which I recently got.  I havent seen it since I was only a few years old.  Which comic film is your favorite? Which is your most hated? Which one do you constantly re-watch, or have in the background while you are doing other things?

I'll be looking forward to the Avengers, I expect it to be great.  Normally I would hold off on expectations, but it is almost impossible not to expect it to be epic.

Tuesday, April 12, 2011

My First Book Is Written! Now It's Time For A Glass Of Wine.


I have been awake throughout the night, (more so) because of excited energy, versus my usual night owl behavior. I completed something I have had in the back burner for some time, something that started in 2006 and popped up a few times through the years. I finally grew up and realized it would begin the next chapter in my life. Finally doing so, I focused all my energy with immense seriousness toward its completion. To sit down and (virtually) not move away from my desk until this task was done. Finally, it has been.

I am extremely proud, to literally, have before me a manuscript that is ready to be polished by a couple of editors. I have put a lot of thought into this book, and I followed the advice of people far more skilled in this craft than I. I simply stopped fighting the concept, I sat down. I wrote. I didn't stop until it was finished. 

I wanted to thank (preliminary) the small group of people that were part of my intial focus groups; all of your input and feedback helped me tighten the stories and improve on my conversational style of writing. I wanted to thank Joe Peacock for inspiring me with his book, Mentally Incontinent, to finish mine. Joe also dropped various and invaluable tidbits, tips and a wealth of knowledge on me. I appreciate all the help.

I have the editorial process now to complete, a few good editors will be handling the rest of this dirty business. I am working now on the cover with some professional help, William Icquatu (photographer) and hopefully in the next few months "I Think? No, I'm Sure...God Hates Me!" will be available anywhere books are sold as well as iBooks and Amazon. I am simply just overjoyed. I am sure the moment I get my proof copy I will be just as giddy as I am right now. There will be something powerfully visceral to see my name on the cover of a book I published that isn't a student paper or an abstract --but a novel. The first major hurdle is over, I wait for the next one to scale. I'm sure there will be many.

I am still working on a number of other books and pieces of writing, hopefully I will have a few drafts completed by September. While I edit the current book.

Thank you all. 

Manny Camacho

Saturday, February 19, 2011

Oh God Hollywood, Why!???

Hollywood...

It is one of those places most of us dream of, fewer still actually get to live there, and even less make it in the thriving and competitive world of acting.

I have had some fortune to work and have projects there, having gotten my feet wet as an associate producer and start a production resume. Who knows, perhaps a few years from now you might be watching one of my own films, cross your fingers. For now I get to talk to people in production, casting, directing, actors, writers, and get to learn from as many of their brains as I can pick.  

With the multitude of talent and creative personalities you would think that Hollywood with all the resources that exist could get some things done right when it comes to video game movies.  

I know, it is easier to say then do, but I am sure when producers, directors and writers sit down to look at a potential film franchise they look at the potential gain vs loss.  For the most part you will want to make gobs of money to be able to continue in the craft.  Then you have the independents.  They want to get enough to make their vision so that when it presents at festivals like Cannes, Sundance, Toronto, New York, Miami Film Festivals, etc, They hope that the critical acclaim can help them gain more opportunity to be picked up by a studio or for them to get the attention of those studios for more "Studio" sized work.  

Then there are those in between.  

For the most part what can be seen are some studios looking at what can be banked on for the lowest amount of money, and are producing junk and wrapping it in the names of genre pieces we know and love to get us hooked to what ends up being trash.  You also have the copycats, where a small percentage of these people jumping onto a bandwagon to make money from the current trend or mood of a population.  I think for the most part many of us are fed up with this line of thinking and are tired of spending our money to go see something that turns out to be junk.  

To a degree I believe this is what makes the piracy of a lot of media such a huge problem.  If you don't pay a cent to download a movie or a song and it ends up not being to your liking, you can erase it and be done with it, no money spent to rent or buy, perhaps you didn't even pay to see it in the theater. However, if you do like it or it surprised you, you now have a file.  Most file types now are such high quality they are the same as the Blu-Ray without the extras, which you can download now too...

Me, in truth, I download everything off of IRC, If I like it I go buy it.  I support the studios and companies that produce good work, if it is awful - then to me it was a great preview - I don't sell it or give it away and in my mind if it were to appear on cable I would normally be able to copy it on my DVR so essentially downloading to me is not the same as piracy from the standpoint I have above.

I am sure there are others out there that will rampantly download and never pay for a DVD or a Blu-Ray. Either way we can see how this problem in some ways were derived from the rampant output of crap from Hollywood.

The reason for this note is, recently, I have been working with different groups as a project manager. Getting the opportunity to make suggestions and even work with Casting Directors from something as simple as holding casting calls in locations I utilize or participate in a casting selection.  I have become much more picky to what makes the most sense for choosing characters from any existing medium - because of these experiences.

I recently looked up "The King of Fighters" film that was put out last year and "Tekken" as well as the older "Dead or Alive" film.  I am noticing, that:

1) Studios, Directors, Producers and Writers are taking their own creative license to make changes to a film because they think it is better then what we as fans of this material already know and love...

In response to this, The reason we as an audience love the material is because of what it is, how it is done and the existing storylines behind it.  It is not a canvas for you random Mr. Director/Producer/Writer guy to alter it to your liking and assume we will embrace your vision.

2) Some of the Worst Casting I have ever seen that kills authenticity and hurts the artistry of the representation

My Response to this, Use what is needed.  If the role calls for Japanese do not assume "Asian" if the role calls for Jamaican or Brazilian don't assume "African" if the role calls for Greek or Roman don't assume "Classically trained British"

These things are important for us as an audience to absorb the best possible representation.  Here is an example - I wanted to take a look at a film called "Mask of the Ninja" simply to see how poorly this was done - Most of the cast were Chinese and American Actors.  many of the Chinese actors were actually Stuntman well adept and skilled in a variety of martial arts, but none of them had any realistic Taijutsu, Koga or Iga-Ryu training...This produced a lackluster martial arts film with the general "wannabe" acrobats and martial arts scene we have scene over and over.  Aside from this, the Ninja attacks occurred in the day time and with litle to no stealth movement being utilized and looked at appeared ridiculous, where you can clearly identify martial art techniques that were not of a Ninja or for that matter of a Japanese origin.

Two very different but better interpretations are "Ninja Assassin" and "The Last Samurai"

While Ninja Assassin was a hyper exaggeration of mythical Ninjutsu and Genjutsu (I have studied Koga and Iga-Ryu styles when I was younger) it kept true to the mythical concepts of Ninjitsu (we all know its not realistic, but when done right it is quite artistic to see), while it did not utilize many actors with the same and proper training they had solid consulting to maintain the image and concept of what needed to be preserved for the film to gets its message across.  Realistically speaking it appears to be a modern version of "The Hunted" which was for all purposes a solid work for its time with appropriate representation as well.

"The Last Samurai" Used an amazing Japanese Cast, and presented the scenario almost like looking through a window in time of how an attack from Assassin's from a Ninja clan would occur and how Samurai would essentially deal with it as it occurs (I have held "A Day in the Life" style seminars in proper costume at the Morikami Museum in Florida for what a Day would be like for Samurai and for Ninja - this topic always get me riled up when I see it done poorly).   

3) Use of things outside of its origination simply to copy or recreate something and have the audacity to utilize its titling or namesake...

Going through the casting for "King of Fighters" I noticed an actor Sean Faris was playing Kyo Kusanagi - he absolutely does not fit, but we will get to this film later.  Looking at his credits he is an accomplished actor for sure, but he has no appearance whatsoever to Kyo Kusanagi...He has a film coming up called "Freerunner" which is about a guy getting chased with a bomb on his him and he has to get from one point in the city to the other, he is listed as young freerunner...There are none of the original creators of Freerunning / Parkour in this film which is in my opinion a crime. To create a film about someone elses highly sought after accomplishments and not even have any of them on this film, which were Yahn and Frederic Hnautra, David Malgogne, Stephane Vigroux Kazuma, Sébastien Foucan & David Belle.

All of these issues I am raging about are the reasons why so many films in production today targeting us are horrible. 

A perfect example as well is Uwe Bole - we hate his movies, I don't think there is one I have liked, yet I have seen them all, and we even got to meet him last year through conference at SGC (he was unable to make it physically to the convention) and I remember a conversation I had with Stuttering Craig from SGC - "You can tell him you hate his films and he will tell you, so what, I don't care, I enjoy making films and will continue to make films" and i remember Craig saying no matter what you think of the guys work you have to respect him for continuing to do it in a way.  While I agree with him on a few levels I would also say, that is great but how about you stick to what it is and not recreate something that is already beloved...

It's the reasons why we love Batman and Batman Returns - dislike Batman Forever and Hate Batman and Robin...Why we like Batman Begins, and ABSOLUTELY LOVE The Dark Knight...Joel Schumacher made Batman into a Rainbow of color and while we love Arnold, made him the big deal in the film and utilized an Actor we love for his emotional characteristics and for his way of conveying that in his face...Bruce Wayne is not outwardly emotional he is a man of few words and is brooding with his rage and inner conflict...That's why we hated what Schumacher did and cant stop watching Chris Nolan's Dark Knight...

I'm looking at the cast list for "King of Fighters" and It is making me sick...

They have some great actors in the wrong roles...Ray Park...I will be seeing him next week and they have him as Rugal...??? I can see how this could work, Rugal is the longest running boss for King of Fighters, its not a totally incorrect placement but wouldn't Ray Park's facial features, size and masterful and internationally known ability with a Quarterstaff be better suited toward Billy Kane... or Perhaps even as a younger Geese Howard 

Terry Bogard was David Leitch....????? Dear god, what have you done to my childhood, whats worse he is a cop with no real fighting ability...ARE YOU SERIOUS, and apparently Mai Shiranui is the main character along with Iori Yagami...  I don't even want to go into how badly this film was made, the total botching and rape, yes rape of the story and misused characters and omission of key figures...I don't want to turn this into a review of "King of Fighters" but it is so wonderfully bad, I challenge people to sit through it that know the game or its storylines and come back and tell me about the excruciating pain of it.

If you look at "Tekken" some of the casting was not bad even though some of those roles should have been switched with other characters (Like Gary Daniels as Bryan Fury and Luke Goss as Steve Fox), and the story of the film was garbage.  But it stills goes to show the concept of adapting something far off from the original.  The end of Tekken used weapons...which made no sense and the fight choreography was atrocious.  We did use 3 locations to help with Casting Calls, and some of those folks were pulled in as extras.  I even remember a friend of ours who really wanted to audition for Julia Chun (she actually looks like her but cosplay and acting are two different things, didn't have the heart to be brutal with her)

Dead or Alive was roughly in the same level of these films but it actually was much more entertaining, the ending scenes were absolutely ridiculous but all in all worked well.  The casting was fairly decent and the fight scenes were great, the rest of the film was lacking.  

I simply think Hollywood, Hong Kong, Tokyo and the like need to really pay attention to what the fans love, you dont have to get the highest paid celebs out there, you can use new faces, don't go for the wrong situations I have stated above. Authentic is always better.  

Don't get me wrong the concept of Acting is to be something you are not and portray it well, and this can be done well by some people out there like Scott Adkins (Undisputed II-III, Ninja) who played a Russian in Undisputed II-III and did so really well.  I am sure good actors can make us sit through a film of those characters that they are not and make us believe.  But there is for the most part acting that, in the moment, we can't believe the person in the role you lose us and thus the audience.  

I can go on about "artistic license" in a film by directors, producers and writers - Legend of Chun Li, Dragonball Evolution, etc.  The point is we don't want your version...we want the version we already love.  Choose wisely the actors and the people that fit, don't just fill in the blank with pre-madonna A and pre-madonna B simply because the actor wants the role or lobbies for it, choose the right group of people to bring to life what we long to see because a lot of the material available is great for films but we are not dumb fans, we know we are looking at garbage when we see it.   Hell give me a call, I'll consult, and If I don't know, I'll get the right person who does to point you in the right direction.

I realize at this point I am burning a hole in my keyboard as I type this, and I have more to write in my book but that is another story.

Thursday, February 17, 2011

Game Review - Returning to a Classic - Final Fantasy XI

Many of you know I'm an Old Pro of World of Warcraft and with Cataclysm out and pretty much conquered...I'm going back and looking at some classic MMO's that helped start the push in the MMORPG Genre of titles. Final Fantasy XI was not the first, or the beginning, but it helped push a movement into the next generation of MMO gaming that was followed by a multitude of titles that either tried to emulate it without FFXI's flaws.  Games like Everquest, Asherons Call, Dark Age of Camelot & Ultima Online all provided the framework for future titles. Oddly enough, most of the fantasy MMO titles we play today will pull from a few existing scenarios. Scenarios like JRR Tolkiens "The Lord of the Rings", which has currently been adapted as a modern MMO or the rule sets (and bestiary) of Gary Gygax and his 1974 Dungeon's and Dragons which to a degree derives from the fantasy storytelling of JRR Tolkien as well...

While this is all good and simple in an oversimplified set of statements. We can stem our necessity to play in a fantasy world from these two originators. Enter Squaresoft, with its amazing Dungeon's & Dragon's fantasy style Role Playing Game for the Nintendo in 1987, "Final Fantasy". Which was created to prevent Squaresoft, at the time, from going bankrupt...So much for nailbiting!

Final Fantasy was not what you would call a blowout title, but it did define the future of the genre and while it had its basic fantasy lines arguably from a Tolkien style of storytelling it had a large amount of background of its own that created a mythos and world that spawned over a dozen titles beloved by its players and lending itself to creating Final Fantasy XI.  This statement was made: 

"Final Fantasy XI is the most representative title of the Final Fantasy series", according to producer Hiromichi Tanaka.

Quite possibly for similar reasons to what I stated above.  When FFXI released it sold 90,000 units in its 1st week while the PS2 versions hindered its own sales due to the higher pricepoint from the Harddrive necessity. The sales were steady and allowed for a large portion of play to come from the US and mixed US and Japanese Player pools together regardless whether you were playing on the PC or the console. The later addition to the Xbox 360 added a different set of player pool from the Xbox Live groups.  

Let me go further to state. I was a pretty hard core player of FFXI when it first released. I achieved, the then level cap of 75 in under 1 month and followed it up with 4 other advanced level jobs from Dark Knight, Paladin and Summoner, to Beast Master and Ninja.  Not to mention the Base Classes of Thief, Red Mage and Black Mage to level 60 a piece.

While at the time the game was one of the best looking graphically for a title of this kind in comparison to Everquest, Asherons Call and Dark Age of Camelot (DAoC).  It was light years ahead of these other titles which looked horrible by comparison. By today's standards the game still holds up with its charm but does have signs of its age in comparison to the newer FFXIV and other graphically extensive titles like guild Wars and EverQuest II which at release most PC's strained to render the game in full fidelity.

Back in 2004-2005 The highest complexity a player would attain in FFXI required the mass coordination of 64 players in alliances to undergo semi-war skirmishes in one of the principle cities called 'Dynamis', These alternate versions of said capital cities where the mass of players would need to overcome invasions of extremely difficult and massively powerful mobs referred to as 'HNM', Hyper Notorious Monsters, were exceptionally difficult to complete, let alone gain individual items that were being farmed by the competing 63 other players with you.  

The low end game consisted of regimented sections of play that had very specific milestones that would allow you to gauge your ability to continue. Going back and replaying this title over the last 2 or so days I find myself easily remembering what I did over 5 years ago and slowly re-acclimating to the game. 

The game in its infancy had a learning curve which did hinder players in the long term to abandon the title after their free month of play (considering that most gamers may beat a video game the first week they own it and it sits on shelves, this didn't affect game sales, only continued game play).  

The first Arc of this game really is learning how to function in its game space, it will take players that are used to other titles or the massive game pool of say World of Warcraft which has considerably easier controls to get used to FFXI and its set of controls which are more streamlined in FFXIV.

This is easily overcome the first few minutes of the game as you explore your surroundings.  The one thing that is considerably more difficult in FFXI that most other titles don't do - but in my opinion is what separates Hardcore from Casual MMO's is the fact that Final Fantasy with the exception of FFX (which pretty much steered you where you need to go) was open worlded and you had to think and write down notes and put to use some brain power to figure out what you needed to do next.  Most titles like WoW will have markers on characters, the ever present "!" and "?" point things out on maps so you don't have to search for it and pretty much spoon feed you the game.  FFXI did no such thing, it would mark the quest giver for you in terms of a Map grid location (i.e., H-7) and list the current quest or mission.  

Other slight quests, or foreshadowings of quests and areas, you get from talking to characters and there are no markers.  So exploration is key in this title.  Maps have permanent fogs of war unless you purchase them from locations usually on the other side of said fog of war (However, the Grid is still present).  So unless you have experienced the game before you will learn from careful exploration, or from bad exploration and dying a lot where you need to go and how to level yourself with patience as you move on.

You originally would level only to your early teens before needing to group for everything from killing 1 mob to doing a quest.  Most Americans not used to this hardcore mentality would grind out (level by killing mobs, a slower process) solo by working on weaker and lower experience yielding mobs, then coming back to the lower level quests they could not do solo and do it at that point.

Now the game has had more of a balancing with all the most recent updates and expansions where leveling is more pleasurable and you won't be killed at level 75 by an Easy Prey Rabbit...I can elaborate on that in comments...^_~

So lets rewind a moment.  Your first set of levels 1-5 is best to get a grip of the control system and basic understanding of speaking to other players and how you interact with the search tools of the game.  Also learning that the hub of your learning and focus can be speaking with the guards at each of the gates in your city.

by level 6 you should have decent understanding of the mouse, keyboard or gamepad for the PS2 or Xbox 360 players. You will now also have questions concerning the various scenarios you have in the game.

Level Grinding - Experience gaining from killing mobs and how can this be gained faster (which you learn in your first parties around level 12 and up with EXP Chains)
Quests - which grant you any number of rewards within your city or the various reputations throughout the game
Missions - which change your rank from 1-10 and exist separately from each expansion.

you can grind through the entire game and level with no real problems and be limited to not having a whole lot of perks from quests or missions (like a chocobo mount, quest gained.  Or an Airship pass, gained from missions).

I find that the earliest players of the game will need to go from level 1-30 and get an advanced job to understand if they will like the gameplay or not.  

Which takes me to the 2nd phase of your gameplay.  You are now lvl 6 and should start doing quests and grab your first set of missions.  Quests can come from anyone in the game, and at this point starting fresh and installing the entire title ($10 with all expansions sans Abyssea) you will get quests from each of the new expansions, so it can be a little daunting and confusing.

Missions are pretty much an easy scenario to focus on.  You have 3 to take before moving to a new rank.  when you hit a new rank you need to turn in a few crystal items to be allowed to get new missions and so on.  Guards at the City gates give you a buff called "Signet" this allows you to gain Conquest points and mobs will drop crystals.  The crystals can be sold (lucratively) or you can use them to craft items in the game and level different jobs or you can use them to turn in for missions (you don't need a whole lot, usually a stack of 12 per rank opening).  

you can reach Rank 2 roughly by Level 6-10.  It is possible to do it earlier, but the final quest in Rank 1 requires you either group with players to kill the mobs you need for the drops or you can buy them.   Depending on the economy on the server your playing 1 stack of c rystals, which you should have at least 4-6 by level 6, can pay for the items on the auction house.

Rank 3 you should be able to get roughly around level 30.  The Conquest points you earn as you kill mobs can be used to buy gear from the same Guards at the gates.  This helps you save your Gil (currency used in most FF titles) so you can use it on other items.

at Level 18 you are granted to ability of a Sub Job.  This is one of those wonderful scenarios that FFXI setup which allows for a huge amount of character customization and individual play design and now with the additions of Aht Urgan and Wings of the Goddess the new job additions allow for a greater depth of play that available back in 2003-2004.  

At level 18 you are only able to work on the base jobs of Warrior, Black Mage, White Mage, Red Mage, Monk, Thief - the Iconic FF archetypes.  So once you hit level 18 you can go back to your city and change the current job you have to the subjob and begin leveling another job.  Whatever your current job level is your subjob is half of it.  So if you level a Warrior to start and hit lvl 18 then go back and decide you want to continue your warrior but want a little extra healing so you can solo better you might level a White Mage, so set your Warrior to Subleve and start again as a White Mage - when your White mage hits Level 18 (as an example) your War abilities will be that of a level 10 Warrior.  

Now you can go back to leveling your level 18 warrior and Sub White Magic (which will be level 9, half of 18), you can now continue leveling your warrior to 36 before you need to continue leveling your White Mage.  With the Level cap at 90 at the moment you can see where you need to go.

The next milestone is level 20.  At level 20 you should venture out to the central hub of this game - which is Jeuno.  and is conveniently at a midway point between the 3 major cities.  Level 20 allows for you to gain the Chocobo mount, which makes life a lot easier when it comes to traveling the game.  A few tricks for this.

by the time you are level 12-15 you will encounter roughly 2 areas outside of your city is a large white structure, when you check this structure you end of getting a crystel for that structure this is a portal point where you can be teleported for easier travel.  There are multiple Teleport points or "Crags" What I find to be the easiet scenario is to get these gems as early as possible reason being Chocobo's will kick you off after a certain point of riding, Each Crag has a chocobo rental npc near them so this makes it easier to port and ride in the game.  

Next Milestone, Level 30...

By now you will have ventured into the basic leveling areas of the game

for levels 1-10 outside your city and these three zones

East / West Ronfaure 
North / South Gustaberg
East / West Sarutabaruta

Level 10-14
Konschtat Highlands
La Theine Plateau
Tahrongi Canyon

Level 15-20
The Valkurm Dunes

Level 20-24
Qufim  

Level 24-30
Qufim 
Delkfutt Tower

Those were some of the best areas to level in the early days of the game, and they still hold true today.

While the expansions have provided a lot of new zones to work with for each of these levels, and since the bulk of players use the newers zones, it is easier to farm your quests and levels int he older locations without them being overcamped.

So with the level 30 milestone you can now venture into a quest usually soloable, but some are more intensive, that allows you to open an advanced job class.  This is the easier path to take for leveling - go straight to level 30 then add the sub class - by using the one you just leveled to 30 and start working on your new advanced class.  

I have found reexperiencing this game literally took me through the highs and lows of what most gamers will experience as they go milestone to milestone.  

Those first steps into the game may be daunting and boring, but once you hit 18-30 and are experiencing some of the more complex content, you have your controls down, made some friends, perhaps even joined a guild (here called Linkshells) and have given some though as to the first steps you want to take into the advanced classes (which the beauty is you can do them all) you may find that if you are a hardcore end game player like myself - you will enjoy the new changes and balancing that FFXI has put back into the game.  

I may get my old account back (whcih had all the classes I spoke of above in the 60-75 ranges) or not, it doesnt matter, a 5 year hiatus granted me the ability to relearn the game.

But after you hit that level 30 and start working on the rest of the game and start learning about skillchains (Renkai) and have even created macros for your controls come back and let me know how you are starting to enjoy the title.

I think I will hit level 90 on my Dark Knight and Sub in either a Thief or a Ninja, Maybe even make myself highly viable by creating a Palading for Tanking.  

So to all those out there that love their MMO's and want a break from the day to day or even if you play World of Warcraft and love it as much as I do, and I play as a Professional - but need a break - try FFXI - whether its your first time or your coming back like me - $10 bucks for the entire title and all the expansions is almost impossible to beat - just realize it can take about 10-12 hours for full installation as it will download updates and patches as it installs each title individually.  

GPX's FFXI Game Score Rating 6.5 out of 10 Overall
8 out of 10 for Hardcore Gameplay 
6 out of 10 for Graphics (title is from 2003)
8 out of 10 Music and Sound (Uematsu is a God among men)
6 out of 10 Gameplay (it has been rebalanced, the Exp grind is a more enjoyable experience where it can take days not months to achieve high levels without sacrificing complexity or making the gameplay to simple)
4 out of 10 game controls (the controls are unorthodox, but you can correct a lot of the weird mechanics with solidly planned and keybound macros)

Note: I will edit this whole review at a later date for grammar and punctuation...its an informal review.