This blog is meant for the good people at Capcom, specifically I am going to call on Ben Judd, producer of the new Bionic Commando games and creative director Simon Viklund. This blog is also meant for gamers that might someday want to write for a game studio, like 1UP's own ViolentMike. I don't write for any studio, game, movie or otherwise. I'm not a professional anything except for a procrastinator. So Ben Judd and the rest reading might just want to print up my rant and wipe their backside with it... then again they might want to take the time to consider my arguments. I've studied under some great writers, poets, novelists, screen and playwrights. They have given me perspective on the art of storytelling and it is something that I apply even to videogames.
This blog is not a diatribe against the Bionic Commando remake. Even though I am writing with Mr. Judd and Mr. Viklund in mind I am not here to say anything unprofessional against their POV. I'm certainly not a troll lamenting them on a forum and calling the game yet-to-be-released "Lam3z0r5." They have fleshed out the world of Bionic Commando, explained it to us on Capcom Unity, in the comic books, podcasts and in interviews on other sites. The story and mechanics of Bionic Commando have all been adapted and they are giving fans a new take in the franchise. Ben and Simon's heart is in the right place and I don't think any other team could have done BC better unless they really knew the source material and explained their work so thoroughly. Very few developers are as candid and we should be grateful that Capcom has spoken with fans in recent years. At the same time they also listen to feedback from the fans, that is practically unheard of for a developer.
I look forward to their 3D game because the original was favorite games of all-time. However I will play through the new game with a critical eye. What this blog will be is an attempt to deconstruct the character of Nathan Radd Spencer and explain how Mr. Judd did the character a disservice by changing up his plot and purpose to fit his own vision. Please bear with me as I plan on using comic books, cartoons and even comic book movies to parallel the developments that I have seen and read on the new BC.
I was very skeptical when I first heard that Bionic Commando was going to get a remake. Very few classic titles have been remade well. Most fall into the traps of shovelware, they have a high-profile name but lack the necessary gameplay that captures or reinvents the experience on the modern consoles. Bionic Commando Rearmed is a rare exception to that rule. EGM and 1UP editor Jeremy Parish talks about it on his blog Bionic Commando revered. Despite the greatness of BCR there is a chance that the following game will take the franchise a step back.
It all began when the very first screens of the new Bionic Commando were shown. The character that many had grown up with had returned with a 'tude, dreadlocks and as Kotaku popularized the term "hot dog" arms. I felt as if Mr. Judd and the people at Capcom were not approaching the character with a full understanding of the elements that made him great. Failing to get Spencer "right" could be a sign that the game itself was not going to ring true of the BC legacy. Swinging through a level with a mechanical arm and shooting bad guys does not a good Bionic Commando make. There is far more to the game than that. Identifying the legacy, understanding the character and recreating him is part of the equation.
When writing adaptations I was always taught to meet the character at their level. If you try to make the character fit your conventions you lose their meaning. This is especially true for comic book or graphic novel adaptations. Iconic characters have an origin "myth" and have a purpose, respecting their purpose is one of the most important things that must be preserved.
As an example, many people were disappointed in the Superman Returns movie. They didn't know exactly how or why but the movie felt as if it were missing something. The character of Clark Kent and Superman were there. The costume with the red cape, blue suit and diamond "S" were there. Superman even had super strength, could fly and use heat vision, yet something was missing from his character. Something was missing that made Superman truly special.
In Superman Returns, Superman himself does not act very super at all. He is a very possessive man filled with jealousy and even a bit of spite over Lois Lane and her new family. Superman is supposed to be above all of those things, the reason for which is because he is not human but Kryptonian. His classic origin dictates that exists to set an example of what humanity could become if they could only put their differences aside and stop acting selfishly. In trying to make Superman more "relevant" with today's audience the movie took Superman's redeeming qualities away and in essence just made him a man in a costume. Unfortunately it seems that the people at Warner Bros. still do not understand what makes adaptations work. They have announced recently that they are going to try to relaunch the Superman film and make it in the same tone as the recent Batman films. It is said of WB Picture Group President Jeff Robinov that "Creatively, he sees exploring the evil side to characters as the key to unlocking some of Warner Bros.' DC properties. "We're going to try to go dark to the extent that the characters allow it," he says. That goes for the company's Superman franchise as well.
A selfish, petty Superman did not win audiences over in Superman Returns, a dark and brooding Superman will do even less to win over fans. Warner Bros. fail to understand that each character represents something else entirely. Batman succeeds because his character and purpose is written as the dark side of the DC universe, he was meant to frame the dark underbelly of the DC world while Superman was the ray of light. Other superheroes exist for different reasons, the Flash, Wonder Woman and Green Lantern all fill their respective roles and live by their own moral compass. If every character and every town were dark and gritty like Batman and Gotham then what is it exactly was it that made him unique in the first place? As if misrepresenting the character wasn't already a problem for an established franchise some people believe that the reason Superman Returns felt odd was because Director Bryan Singer was going through some personal family issues. These issues were mirrored on the screen.
I am not saying that Ben Judd had a child out of wedlock and then spent a decade in space. Nor am I saying that he has issues with the military, government or classic games. What I am saying is that the changes put on Nathan Spencer to make him fresh and relevant are akin to the changes placed on Superman. They were unnecessary and betray the ideal that the hero stood for.
There is a lengthy 1UP interview with Ben Judd on 1UP. In it he describes the ways in which the studio approached the remake. In it we get to see some of the changes that Ben made and hear the explanation as to how it will be used in the sequel. Some of the things that Mr. Judd described did end up sticking out in BCR. They grabbed the player and broke the flow of the game. In Jeremy Parish's Bionic Commando review he calls the moment out "The plot remains the same, despite the expanded text and odd little subplots (like Spencer's out-of-left-field lamentations about his ex-wife, which provide the game's only real "Uh, what?" moments)."
Anything that takes you out of the moment and breaks the narrative does not belong. Visually it was with Spencer's new dreadlocks and 'tude, but in the BCR story it was these random lines about a wife. Adding something to an established character could betray the original intent. The concept of "adding" during an adaptation or remake is a dangerous gambit. Adding a new character, plot device or relationship is a poor way of re-imagining the intent and purpose of the original title. It is not enough to know the character and story on a surface level and then try to recreate it for the modern era. The recent Superman film is proof of that. It is also not enough to say that everything will be connected and make sense in BCR, the BC comic book as well as in the new BC game. All that amounts to is a revisionist history that undoes (or rewrites) many of the things that Spencer stood for. There were the things that made him an icon in gaming circles and a deviation of which would hamper his new persona from having the same charm.
Developers seem to have lost touch with iconic characters. This goes for the people working on comic books, movies and even animation. We live in a culture where the perception is that the only way to reach the audience is to make a character dark and cynical. The snarky humor of the highly successful Shrek films made this seem true. However Shrek, the character, was not born a hero, he was a selfish ogre that became a hero during the course of his adventure. Other animation studios seem to miss the point and are creating rude characters for the sake of being rude. In other words, no redeeming qualities. Changing the format to a more forward or rude tone is a mistake that every studio is guilty of. The audience changes slightly, their expectations of a character and franchise remain the same. While Shrek made a lot of money for Dreamworks, audiences still flocked to see the less snarky and more sincere animated films from Pixar. It can be argued that the audiences for both films are different. Then again there might be tremendous crossover in the audience.
In the videogame world a dark atmosphere and gritty realism does nothing for a series that never began in that way. Being more "realistic" than usual did nothing but weaken the Sonic the Hedgehog series. The adventures used to be light and cartoonish while the gameplay focused on speed and exploration. Sonic used to be a true rival to the Super Mario series. Few can argue that the Sonic titles have been quality releases in recent years, with the exception of Sonic Rush. Every other game receiving lower and lower reviews since 2000. Meanwhile Nintendo has "stayed the course" and Mario's family-friendly adventures (and predictable story) continue to sell (and inspire) millions. So is it the tastes that have changed or the developers that have changed? I see the way Bionic Commando is headed and I think of the changes placed on newer Sonic games, changes that betray the purpose of the character and additions that are unnecessary.
I believe that Radd Spencer is an iconic character. Like Dante, Mega Man, Ryu and any other established Capcom character. Despite the upcoming Bionic Commando being called "the first real sequel" to the franchise that would be putting down the good GameBoy game and passable GB Color game. Mr. Judd is working on the fourth and fifth game with the same title. Spencer is not just a character in an adventure series but represents many ideals. It is the way in which producers, like Mr. Judd, approach the character that preserves or betrays that iconic status.
My brothers and I became huge fans of the original Bionic Commando on the NES. One of the reasons that we were enamored with Spencer was because of who he was fighting and what he was fighting for. Despite the best efforts of the censors, enough visual clues were left in the game to let us know that we were fighting Nazis. While the public school system had been dumbed down, sanitized and made politically correct in recent years, my brothers and I were fortunate enough to be taught by teachers that were passionate about their job. They did not skirt around the horrors of World War II and the brutality of the Nazi regime. Even though we were young, we weren't fooled by the weak attempt at censorship on the NES. Getting to stick it to the ultimate bad guys made Radd Spencer all the more iconic a hero in our book. To us he, and to a lesser extent Super Joe, had become the videogame equivalent of Captain America. He was a hero with an awesome gimmick, replace the unbreakable shield with a bionic claw and he still comes in the nick of time to beat the Nazis and save the day. How could this character not become an institution?
However the purpose of a character like Spencer seems dated. The idea of patriotism and war heroes has changed tremendously since WW II. Public perception changed for a number of reasons. What was once noble and patriotic had now become a tyrannical exchange of ideals. The lines between good and evil, which seemed clearly defined in WW II had become muddied by the Korean and Vietnam wars. For the first time in US history, news of the war and the casualties were reaching homes via television. Rather than accept that our presence abroad was necessary to ensure a free world, people began to question the purpose of these conflicts.
The counter culture used the senseless losses (on both sides) of Vietnam as a sign of the "military-industrial complex" that General Eisenhower had warned us about decades before. The USA had grown so large and powerful that we had become the new menace. Characters like Captain America seemed like an anachronism during this time. The ideals that Captain America had stood for seemed disconnected from the new reality of war. New heroes, using technology rather than physical ability, like Iron Man were born out of the Vietnam conflict. Radd Spencer could very much be read as being akin to Tony Stark rather than Steve Rogers / Captain America.
After World War II many in the USA felt as if the true villains in the world were no longer out there. The Persian Gulf War and current Operation Freedom seemed like power grabs for the political families and their friends instead of a war0 against an aggressor that could genuinely threaten the US and our allies. Conspiracy theorists gained momentum and many believed that modern dictators like Saddam Hussein and Kim Il Jong were nothing more than boogey men, scary words to be exploited by those with political interests.
Cynnics in a post 9-11 world believed that putting these boogey men in the news kept the public in line. Whenever people begin questioning the loss of freedoms granted by the Bill of Rights, they were labeled as unpatriotic. 9-11 has been a powerful tool for fear mongers. After all who would dare oppose something labeled the "Patriot Act?" An act meant to protect us from terrorists... or was it meant to protect us from ourselves? In a climate of fear it is not hard to see how the plot of the new Bionic Commando might reflect the zeitgeist of war and patriotism.
It has also become en vogue to be completely disillusioned with politics, to be completely cynical of anything and everything associated with the political machine. It is almost shameful how little respect the average person has in politics. People that are enamored with patriotism and the ideals of this country are easy to parody. Be they politicians or fake news reporters it is almost expected that they act with some false modesty because the public has little to no faith in what they are saying. It is possible that the new Bionic Commando reflects a little bit of the disillusionment with the government and popular opinion as well.
To bring back the comic book world; Iron Man became popular because he was a realistically flawed character. He represented the modern themes of conflict and escalation. The depressed, alcoholic Tony Stark might seem like the right "role model" to use now. Unfortunately changing the purpose of the Bionic Commando, changing his look and ideal actually betrays the history and potential of the character.
The template of Captain America actually turned out to work even better in times of crisis, fear and disillusionment than Iron Man ever could. Steve represents the heroic ideal. A surface understanding of the character says he is anachronistic to modern warfare and politics, however at the core he speaks to the founding principals of this great nation. In the comic books Captain America was frozen in ice just at the end of WW II and thawed out in the modern world. He seemed to be completely out of touch with the realities of the modern world, out of touch with the common man. When he went into war there was a clearly defined "bad guy," in the modern world he is seen as a symbol of the "arrogant" US military complex. Captain America was painted as a bully by the public, however the writers of the comics carefully crafted his stories to reflect how public perception was betraying the ideals that the US stood for and that Steve Rogers himself was the biggest victim of the changing times.
Captain America had always fought the good fight. He wanted to fight for this country when times were at their most dire, however because he was so small and sickly as a young man he could not enlist so he signed up for experimental treatments to help the army where he could. He became a super soldier through these experiments and was finally able to give himself for his country. Rogers went in to war believing in the inherent goodness of man, believing in the rights that should be granted to people of the world and he was willing to fight as a liberator, never as an oppressor. This is why he carried a shield rather than a sword into battle, he was the defender of every person, not only the Americans. He was the living symbol of freedom.
The story device of freezing him after WWII and waking him up decades later served many functions. Captain America was thawed out in an time where the Vietnam conflict, advances in warfare technology and disillusionment had given birth to Tony Stark. At first he seemed to represent everything that was wrong with the USA but upon closer inspection he turned out to stand for everything that was right. As a character he had never changed. He still believed in the inherent goodness of man and was still willing to fight as a liberator. The times had changed but Steve would not yield. He was acting the role of an icon. He would not be defeated by hate, fear and ignorance. He would not succumb to the demons that made Tony Stark fail in his early career. Radd Spencer should have been akin to Rogers rather than Stark in the remake.
The times have changed. The rules of conflict have changed. The social and political climate have changed. However Nathan Radd Spencer should not have changed. Like all the great icons in comic books, movies and videogames, he should have remained true to his origin. He should have served as a mirror, not to reflect our dark and cynical opinions, but to show us that we could rise above the times because we have the potential to be better than them.
All of the icons in game form, whose games continue to sell, do so because they do not deviate from their plot and purpose. Mario, Link, Samus are all Nintendo icons that continue to do what they have always done, act the hero without compromise. The graphics and control scheme have been updated, but the characters themselves stayed the same. The same can be said of Capcom greats Ryu, Mega Man and Dante. At no point have we been presented the characters, years later, as dark and jaded warriors. Fitting the modern conventions of what is cool and stylish, namely a 5 o'clock shadow, some dreadlocks and muscles. To do so would be very presumptuous. It would say that there was something inherently wrong with the clean-cut character that you remember from long ago, that this new producer is "fixing" Nathan Spencer for you and for the times. In my book there is only one way to describe the cosmetic changes made to Radd Spencer...
Thinking up a plot that pulls the hero out of everything that made him great betrays his origin, the spirit of the character and I dare say the game itself. Mr. Judd and Mr. Viklund went to the trouble to fill out an entire universe with cues from the original Bionic Commando, Speed Rumbler, Commando and Mercs. They certainly did their homework when approaching the remake. They did not give us an impression of BC and did not recreate it based on memories of the original title. Those would be the failings of the recent Sonic the Hedgehog games. The reason that Spencer looks the way he does is explained in the comics, games and podcast. The betrayals put on Spencer and changes in the character are not consistent with heroic tradition or what works well in games and comics. No matter how well thought-out the plot is, or how many loose ends are tied up in their retelling, I believe these are unnecessary changes and plot devices.
The purpose of the hero has been changed to fit the times. Spencer now laments a wife. A wife that was added to serve as a plot device instead of defining characteristic. He sports a new look to go with his new attitude. He is so dangerous that his bionic arm is kept apart from him while he serves time in jail. Knocking a hero down is one thing, but what about remaking him in a completely different image? These radical changes work for the short-term success of the character and game, it makes him more timely for the audience, but these changes do not help the long-term success of the series. Gamers (and the public at large) will always need a hero to look up to, to admire and try to emulate. No matter how dark the times become, the hero must remain consistent. When that hero is remade to fit the times then he will never become an icon. For proof I refer back to Captain America.
The Captain has always been emulated but never duplicated. When he was retired for a spell in the 90's, the hard-hitting, in-your-face, anti-hero U.S. Agent took the mantle. The U.S. Agent fit the popular characters of the time like the Punisher and Wolverine except he carried a shield and wore a stars and stripes costume. This new Captain America had been made to fit the times but ultimately did not have the staying power of the true hero. When I look at the changes placed on Spencer I think of U.S. Agent, Bannerman or even the Red Guardian. They all have super soldier serum running through their veins, they all have shields and combat training, they all believe in their countries, but none of them are iconic heroes like Steve Rogers. In the same way the new Bionic Commando has a bionic arm, combat training and ties to Super Joe, but Nathan Spencer he is not.
A plot that works for reintroducing him to audiences should have revolved around how the world has changed and Nathan's newfound place in it. Like the culture shock that Steve Rogers felt when he awoke decades after WW II had ended, so too should Nathan have felt lost and rejected by the world. To make it more relevant to the readers of the blog, this type of plot would be seen in the film First Blood. In it, Vietnam war vet. John Rambo tries to return to society only to be faced with extreme prejudice from his fellow Americans. When pushed too far he snaps then relies on his training to undo an entire community. The commentary on wars and the forgotten soldiers is quite powerful.
The latter Rambo films were complete rubbish. Like the Rocky films they were made to cash in on a popular character. The sympathetic Rocky and Rambo characters were changed to fit the overly-patriotic 80's. Leading up to such regrettable decisions as having him team up with the "heroic" Afganistan rebels to defeat the "evil" Russians in Rambo 3, or having him beat a gigantic Russian boxer in his own country. The reason I bring this up is because the new Bionic Commando is shaping up to have a "Rambo plot" rather than a "First Blood" one.
This would not be the first time that Capcom has betrayed a classic series with a dark and brooding remake. Does anyone remember the failings of Final Fight: Streetwise? Despite it being longer with far more features than the original arcade title, very little nuances from the original title remained. The game added a convoluted plot, added a new main character and tried to retcon itself into canon by bringing back arcade characters and locations. Despite the intentions to relaunch the franchise and call up as many homages to the original title as it could, it instead buried all of the things that made it great. As Warner Bros. failed Superman in Superman Returns so too did Capcom fail Final Fight with Streetwise. Have Capcom learned their lesson and are now trying to avoid those same failings in the next Bionic Commando? Or are they doomed to "pull a WB" and push ahead without changing their approach to relaunches? I don't know.
I'd like to hear what Ben Judd or the people at Capcom think about this blog. They aren't the only ones passionate about Bionic Commando. There are plenty in the community that cut their teeth on the Capcom classics. We are eager to see the return of the classics but skeptical if Capcom can honor the legacy without betraying the intent of those games and those wonderful characters. I only hope they don't think I'm making much ado about nothing. I'd rather push to see Capcom try their best than to sit on my hands and accept whatever they publish. As a player you should also keep pushing for better titles from your favorite publishers. If you are becoming a writer for a game studio then please try to learn as much as you can about the craft, about heroic myth and traditional plots. As a writer you should never settle for conventions but try to push the story. Find what truths word for the character and what are simply gimmicks. Find out what makes a hero or villain work and write a story that meets them at their level, don't just take the character and make up a plot as you go along, you will never go anywhere if you do. Most important read books and play videogames! The more of each you do the more you should learn about each respective genre and how tha
html_removed
t translates to your future job!
Hope you have a great weekend. Let me know what you are up to!
