Knights of the Dinner Table Magazine

[Wes]

Well, the "Gamer's Rant on the Movies" article is a rant, as it says. While I don't agree with everything he says, I do read his column every month, and it usually makes me laugh. Of course, everyone has different tastes, but so far the majority of readers seem to be in favor of keeping the rants.

WURD to that. The Spoony rants are teh funny (I LOL when reading them) and seem like a good fit in KoDT - which I subcribe to through my FLGS. Great mag and a great buncha folks who produce it.

 

[Kelek72]

KODT is an awesome grab at five bucks. Funny comics, good reader feedback in the letters and the forum at the end of the magazine, Geek Fu articles talk about some issues affecting a 30-year-old-ish gamer, Cries from the Attic is always a good read, and Gamer's Rant.

The Rant is a spot on take of that one negative guy in every gaming group who is gifted at properly wording his disgust for lame movies. Starship Troopers got what it deserved. Conan the Destroyer and Red Sonja got what they deserved. Etc... Even movies I have enjoyed had parts that left me scratching my head and Noah just points those flaws out!

I don't always agree with the rant but it is still an enjoyable read. Some people have to totally agree with an author to enjoy the reading experience. I just need to laugh sometimes!

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Hey, just because you love something doesn't mean you can't acknowlege it has warts! Noah does that.

Do I love movies like Conan? Hawk the Slayer? Sure! But I'm still going to diss them in areas where they fail.

And as for some of the others he's reviewed? If a movie is bad, its bad, even if its enjoyable.

 

[mossfoot]

Seriously, what kind of thin skin do you have to have not to be able to laugh at, and even rage against, the crap we love? The movies he rants against are, you must admit, flawed. Even if you love them to pieces, they're flawed, and most movies are.

Spoony clearly loves movies, he doesn't hate them. When he rants, it's often because of disappointment as to what the movie could have been. Nothing wrong with that, because whether you realize it or not, it's simply a reflection of what many people, perhaps even yourself, feel deep down inside.

 

[w_earle_wheeler]

In the interest of clarity, I like sardonic movie criticism (I like Ebert's acerbic rants, MST3K, Joe Bob Briggs, etc). I love to laugh at the things that I enjoy. My problem with the Gamer's Rant isn't that's the ranting, or that it's ranting about something (sometimes remotely) related to my hobby. My problem is that the Gamer's Rant is self-centered around the writer and less so about the movie. It screams of PAY ATTENTION TO ME.

So, Noah didn't put the cut-along-the-dotted-line on the article? I never assumed he did. But even if the publisher did that without his permission, it still adds a level of annoyance and insecurity to the whole package.

If people like it, and the publisher supports it, then they should feel secure about it. Just publish it. I don't mind a (perceived) dud or two in a magazine, because it has to appeal to everyone. And KotDT is a great magazine.

I don't read the rants, and I don't like Fuzzy Knights, but I don't mind their inclusion in the magazine. However, whenever someone mentions those two articles, histrionic (some of them) apologists come out of the woodwork to protect them, as if they were under siege.

Why do this if they're popular, supported, and not in any danger of being removed from the magazine?

While debate is good, I get the feeling that mentioning this to the publisher would just result in a "You don't know what you want" or "If you don't like it, don't read it" response. I could read every Gamer's Rant, make a careful critique on what I think works and doesn't work, present a frickin' thesis on it, print it out of gold leaf paper written in Vectra's blood, and I'd still get the same response: "lol u don't get it lol."

That's why I'm not really invested in critiquing/defending the section in any great detail, and that's why any debate about this section always snowballs.

 

[Mark Plemmons]

In the interest of clarity, I like sardonic movie criticism (I like Ebert's acerbic rants, MST3K, Joe Bob Briggs, etc). I love to laugh at the things that I enjoy. My problem with the Gamer's Rant isn't that's the ranting, or that it's ranting about something (sometimes remotely) related to my hobby. My problem is that the Gamer's Rant is self-centered around the writer and less so about the movie. It screams of PAY ATTENTION TO ME.

I think any rant gives that impression.

I don't read the rants, and I don't like Fuzzy Knights, but I don't mind their inclusion in the magazine. However, whenever someone mentions those two articles, histrionic (some of them) apologists come out of the woodwork to protect them, as if they were under siege.

Why do this if they're popular, supported, and not in any danger of being removed from the magazine?

All products, tv shows, etc. have their fans and their harsh critics. When one of these factions gives an opinion, you can be sure that the other faction will rise up. I wouldn't consider it a sign of anything else.

Me? I just like to talk.

While debate is good, I get the feeling that mentioning this to the publisher would just result in a "You don't know what you want" or "If you don't like it, don't read it" response. I could read every Gamer's Rant, make a careful critique on what I think works and doesn't work, present a frickin' thesis on it, print it out of gold leaf paper written in Vectra's blood, and I'd still get the same response: "lol u don't get it lol."

I think our response to every "I loathe the Gamer's Rant" post has been pretty much the same -> you're outnumbered by the "I like the Gamer's Rant" readers. So far all I've seen is a small but vocal minority who loathe it. Doesn't mean their opinion is wrong, it's just a different opinion.

any debate about this section always snowballs.

Amen.

 

[w_earle_wheeler]

I think our response to every "I loathe the Gamer's Rant" post has been pretty much the same -> you're outnumbered by the "I like the Gamer's Rant" readers. So far all I've seen is a small but vocal minority who loathe it. Doesn't mean their opinion is wrong, it's just a different opinion.

I definitely think that, from a fan and business standpoint, the Gamer's Rant should stay in the magazine. I think all gamers from the Satanic Panic era know the danger of the "vocal minority."

Didn't Mr. Kenzer himself send down a suggestion on the message boards that the rants should be about game-related movies? Did I imagine this? Did I fail a will save?

I think what I will do is go through my KotDT back issues and read all the rants. It's possible that they have really changed tone and direction and I didn't notice. And it's always worthwhile to give something a second chance.

Also, since I offered to Jolly to write some movie-rants myself so that I could see what it's like to be in Noah's shoes, I should be more prepared on the off-off-chance my offer is taken up.

BTW Mark, hop on over to the "HackMaster New Edition" thread over here if you haven't already.

 

[Mark Plemmons]

Didn't Mr. Kenzer himself send down a suggestion on the message boards that the rants should be about game-related movies?

Sort of. Last September (issue #119), David Kenzer said (edited for brevity):

"Here's my view of what a movie review should entail... I promise that anyone that can deliver this will see print. I'd also be happy for this sort of review to displace or at least share time with the Rant.

A review of the movie...not a synopsis, but thoughts on what was great/sucked and why.

What did the characters/plot do that would/wouldn't work in a game/RPG?

This is the best part and I'm sorry to see that no one has ever hit the nail on the head regarding this.

As a gamer I saw (blah blah) coming amile away and why (and because of experience in what game).

Other stuff related to games/gaming you saw in the move. What games the movie characters probably play or would be good at.

How this movie could be made into a board game/RPG etc. (not precisely how, but a "this would make a really kewl game of" and follow with 2-3 sentences, etc.

Most important point: The overall column needn't be controversial but must evoke one or more emotions in the reader. Reviews should be interesting to read: that's the sinle most important bit. Look at John O'Neill's work and you'll find some boring stuff made interesting."

As far as I know, no one's submitted anything.

 

[Jolly_Blackburn]

I've gotten at least one review I'm looking at. Some promises of more to come.

As far as the Rants all I can say is it's a numbers game.

If I sense more people are responding to a feature than opposed to it....?

Well, it's a no brainer really. I'll keep running with what seems to be working.

If the winds change and I think a feature is no longer working? I'll cut it.

I'm not THAT loyal.

 

[ColonelHardisson]

Well, the "Gamer's Rant on the Movies" article is a rant, as it says. While I don't agree with everything he says, I do read his column every month, and it usually makes me laugh. Of course, everyone has different tastes, but so far the majority of readers seem to be in favor of keeping the rants.

My guess is that it's popular because there really isn't anything else like it. If and when a truly good, professional-caliber writer starts doing a gamer-focused movie column, you'll see a waning of interest in the rant, unless it rises to the challenge. Which could happen, since competition often makes everyone better.