Ruined Video Game Worlds

Another world. Another time. In the Age of Wonder. A thousand years ago, this land was green and good. Until the Crystal cracked...

If you're a fan of Jim Henson movies (or the Crystal Method) you'll undoubtedly recognize those words as evoking the image of a world gone wrong. This list is about video game worlds and lands that were once good but have become corrupted and ruined either before or during the course of the game. There's nothing quite like being immersed in a nightmarish hellscape to increase the tension of a game or to evoke feelings of loss, hopelessness and despair. There are definitely more places I thought of than could fit on the list but the following are the ones that I think have the greatest impact either because of the sheer magnitude of their downfall or the atmosphere and feel of their ruinous nature. Honourable mentions go out to Fallout's world and Chrono Cross' Dead Sea.

5. Dark Land - Super Mario Bros. 3

Don't let the fact that this is in an 8-bit Mario game fool you, Dark Land is a veritable hell on earth. It's especially jarring given the overall benevolence of the rest of the Mushroom World. Here the Koopa tribe's weapons of war roam the land, sea and air. The country is filled with skulls, fire, lava, ash and consuming darkness, and some environments are entirely drained of colour. Basically, it's like the Mario version of walking into Mordor. However, in the final screen of the map, you are confronted with Bowser's castle, looming over the ruins of mushroom people structures. That's right; evidently, Bowser did not originally own the land he lives in. He invaded this area from wherever he came from and literally built his empire on the bones of his enemies. This is the horror that will befall the rest of the lands should you fail. It's even worse given that the mushroom people are non aggressive so this is basically an act of genocide on par with the Roman invasion of Dacia. Bowser seems to have lost his touch in later games but in this entry he was a vicious and cruel tyrant. When you fought him it was friggin' frightening as he throws himself about the room spitting fire, attempting to crush or immolate our hero. In the end, the only way to kill him is through a relentless torrent of fireballs or to let his murderous rage consume him and bring about his own downfall, much like Satan's attempts to escape hell cause him to be trapped there in Dante's Inferno. Epic and terrifying to say the least.

4. 2,300 A.D. - Chrono Trigger

Although you could say that the idea of this was lifted from Terminator, I still feel that this is pretty cool. In the year 1999, Lavos emerges from the depths of the earth and brings annihilation upon the planet. I think it was an interesting move to establish Lavos as a being beyond human comprehension so there is no way of knowing exactly what its motivations for this act are. It simply appears to be a fathomless act of genocide. 400 years later, the shattered remnants of humanity are still fending for themselves in the rubble. The feeling of loss is especially great as Chrono Trigger is a time traveling game, so you get to see the entire scope of the the world's history and see that it will all end in ruin. It's almost akin to a nuclear war: all the plans and dreams of humanity amounted to nothing because of a senseless act of colossal violence. It's also really cool that humanity is locked in a fight with a machine civilization (much like it was with reptiles in the beginning) but this is ultimately a pointless struggle. Especially in light of the fact that Lavos' spawn are wandering Death Peak, waiting to enter into space and inflict a similar fate on other worlds. It's a hopeless situation where all your actions are fruitless. No matter how many machines, mutants or Lavos spawn you kill, the world is still damned and no matter how many times you sleep in an Enertron, you're still hungry.

3. The Dark World - The Legend of Zelda: A Link to the Past

Compared to the lush, green forests and fields of Hyrule, the Dark World was a blighted place, filled with withering grass, polluted water, lost souls and bizarre and monstrous creatures at every turn. Nothing was normal or peaceful and everything was hostile and grotesque. Apparently, this place once was the Golden Land: a divine and imperishable realm that has been corrupted by Ganon's acquisition of the Triforce and mastery of its power. One can only imagine how far it has fallen, and leaving the nature of the Golden Land to the imagination of the player was a brilliant move on their part. For all we know, it might never have born a resemblance to Hyrule and only took that on once Ganon's heart and mind shaped it. In this regard, the Dark World also proved to be a very interesting method of giving the player an understanding of the antagonist. This environment is a reflection of Ganon's heart and thus, you are basically walking through the mind of the villain during your quest in his kingdom. Fittingly, it is not over-the-top and completely demonic and horrifying. After all, Ganondorf may be evil but he's not a psychopath or Satan's spawn or anything. The Dark World is an appropriately dark, harsh, twisted, sick and diseased version of Hyrule. It's really telling of Ganon's nature when you are inside the Dark Palace and you see all the statues of his pig-like form grasping the Triforce. It's self-aggrandizing but also accepting of his true nature, and I like the idea that Ganon does not resist the change of form that he and the Golden Land underwent. Your prolonged stay in this nightmare really draws you further into the world and mythos of Hyrule, and (although I love the Ocarina of Time to death) delivers an experience that I would argue is more dark and disturbing then that offered by any of its successors.

2. The Demise of Nosgoth - Legacy of Kain: Soul Reaver

Although some of the games have found commercial success, the Legacy of Kain series seems to have only reached cult classic status as a whole. However, I count myself as a member of the cult, so the majority of you who haven't experienced these games will just have to take my word for it. The feel of Nosgoth in Legacy of Kain: Soul Reaver is truly like no other. The background to the story is that Kain chose to plunge the world into darkness at the end of the previous game and began an empire of vampires that ruled Nosgoth for a thousand years. During this time human civilization had been completely obliterated and most populations had been enslaved for food. However, this is not where the game begins. Oh no. You begin playing as Raziel, the resurrected specter of one of Kain's lieutenants, centuries after Kain's empire began to decline. In other words, things aren't going right for anybody. Humans, vampires and animals are all pretty much doomed. Since the fall of the empire, the humans have regained some strength and have built a solitary fortress from which they attack the languishing vampires. However, it's simply too late.

Wandering alone in a ruined and decayed land sparsely populated by mutated and decrepit vampires scavenging for food on a violent and mindless quest for vengeance is a uniquely lonely, perverse and enjoyable experience. Like in the Zelda games, the world is filled with structures and ruins that give a feeling of depth, history and richness to the environments. It's especially great when you meet the bosses, the freakishly deformed and often insane vampire brethren of Raziel. His conversations with them only serve to heighten your feelings of foreboding as you hear the boasts, curses and lamentations of Nosgoth's vampiric masters, twisted in mind and body by the ravages of time and isolation. Your experiences are also punctuated by your meetings with Kain, whose calmness, clarity and acceptance of the situation make things even more creepy. As an unmoving centre to this spiral of madness, I honestly didn't know if he was either supremely enlightened or the most insane of all of Nosgoth's denizens. If you play the other games in the series you get a sense for how Nosgoth's dark history has inexorably led it to this end, which only gives the sense of corruption more depth . In the words of Ariel: “Ghastly past. Insufferable future. Are they one and the same?”

1. The World of Ruin - Final Fantasy VI

I won't lie, I almost created this list for the sole purpose of putting Nosgoth and the ruined world of Final Fantasy VI at the top of it. One of the most powerful aspects of the World of Ruin is that the cataclysm happens during the progress of the game. At a point that gamers understandably assumed to be the climax, the true antagonist was revealed, the quest was failed and the world was plunged into chaos. The world has been utterly reshaped by the cataclysm: the location of most cities and landmarks have shifted with many areas completely destroyed or missing, and new geographical formations being raised. All plants, water and land have taken on a sickly hue and it is much more difficult for the planet to support life. However, the full gravity of what has happened doesn't hit you until you play for a few more hours and see how Kefka's actions have affected (or killed) every single person you had ever met in the game. Finally, at some point it occurs to you: this is it. There is no going back and there is no chance of the world being fully healed (at least not during the course of the game or the lifetimes of the characters). The only thing left to do is pick up the pieces and try to do the best you can in this sad state of affairs.

Unlike Zelda's Dark World, the ruined world is not some alternate dimension you can escape from. It is also not some horrible future that can be prevented. Nor is it like Nosgoth or the world of Fallout where the state of decay is immediately accepted because it is all the player knows. The only thing that I find to be close is the world of Xenogears when things get totally destroyed and virtually everybody on the planet is cannibalized to feed the resurrection of a god. But here, the ruin was more of an apocalypse. It happens towards the end and is part of the game's conclusion. Xenogears is awesome but it does not force you to live in the aftermath and go about your business, making you long for the return of a time and place that will never be again. Final Fantasy VI does exactly that. Moreover, it is the resolve that the protagonists find, to keep going in this world of ruin, that defines them as truly heroic.

Most Annoyingly Inaccurate Historical Movies

This list needs some clarification before continuing. What I mean by “annoyingly inaccurate” is movies that are based of historical subject matter, deviate from the historical record and wind up with something terrible. While I am a big history fan and I love it when a period is accurately represented (i.e. the Name of the Rose), I don't think huge deviation is an unforgivable sin unless it is done for reasons that personally annoy me.

I think a great example of this is the movie The Thirteenth Warrior. I'm sure that, to a lot of people, this was a brain dead, generic medieval warrior movie. However, I think the premise (taken from Michael Crichton's Eaters of the Dead) was actually pretty cool. The goal was to create a very loose retelling of the Beowulf epic, combined with the theory of neanderthal survival into the Dark Ages and told from the prospective of real life Arab historian Ahmad ibn Fadlan. For me, the very idea stirs the imagination and even though there are loads of historical inaccuracies (the Vikings using weapons and armour from all sorts of inappropriate places and time periods, a total misrepresentation of Viking vs. Arab horses, etc.) I think these were probably intentional. The concept is a mashup of a whole bunch of mythical, historical and biological stuff so such inaccuracies only add to the charm. A great example is how the Norsemen are represented as filthy. While in truth they were just as, or more, clean than most peoples during the period, the story is told from the perspective of Ahmad. All we know is how he saw things, not things as they actually were.

Other movies however, do not far as well. They misrepresent history but for no good purpose. The movies on this list rob the viewer of a glimpse of another time period and offer a vision or message that is either completely uninteresting, or downright stupid. There are countless movies that could easily have made this list like Rob Roy or Pathfinder which I did not include for various reasons. Rob Roy is inaccurate but is faithful to the book and is also totally awesome. Pathfinder is inaccurate but it's so terrible in general that I don't find its inaccuracy to be all that annoying. I find its very existence annoying and therefore it would be a candidate for films that I generally despise. Kingdom of Heaven was a million times better but I find its inaccuracies to be extremely annoying. Hence, it's on the list.

Why isn't Alexander on the list? Well, although that movie is bad (and inaccurate) what annoys me most is that the movie was boring and horrible, not that it was inaccurate. Hence, it's not on the list. One dishonourable mention I have to give out is to King Arthur. In some ways, it should almost be number one because it tries to make mythical ideas seem plausible and that they might be based in fact. It then totally screws this up by creating something that's just as unbelievable as the myth but without any of the charm and personality of the legends. However, again, this film has way worse going on in it than mere historical inaccuracy. Three out of the five movies here take place in the medieval period because it's the time period I most care about. Also, movies that take place in the ancient world (Gladiator, Troy, Spartacus, etc.) usually do better for some reason.

5. Braveheart
I enjoyed Braveheart when I first saw it and I can still bring myself to watch it every so often. Unlike Oliver Stone's Alexander (whose movies have a real penchant for fucking up all manner of history be it classical, political or rock music), the inaccuracies drag down a film that's still entertaining. It's probably because the movie feels less like it's trying to be a bones to balls accurate representation of the past. The weapons and armour are pretty much dead wrong and it looks like it takes place in the Iron Age or something, rather than 100 years AFTER Kingdom of Heaven (I know it takes place in Scotland and all, but the English should look more impressive at least).

But what really annoys me is how they messed up the battles. The Battle of Stirling Bridge (depicted sans bridge and river in the movie) was way more than a bunch of screaming men charging at each other. It's stuff like this that propagates the myth that there was no such thing as military strategy between the Romans and Napolean. The movie also does a terrible job of portraying Wallace as a great tactician, as his bright idea is to “use spears... long spears...” to impale cavalry. A critical observer might rightly ask, “Why hadn't the Scots done this before? Did they not have axes? Is there something in their water making them stupid?” The technique of using schiltrons demanded a lot of training and preparation because they were expected to remain in a variety of formations and move around both offensively and defensively as the situation needed. It was hardly the “Quick, pick up these sharpened logs before they figure out what's going on!” approach depicted in the movie. Moreover, in reality, Wallace also used the schiltrons during the Battle of Falkirk where, in the movie, they are suspiciously absent. My guess is that they didn't want to show them at that point in the movie because it was Wallace's major defeat and they didn't want to make it seem like a bad idea or something.

But this brings me to another point. One of the main reasons he lost was because of the presence of Welsh longbowmen, something that was totally unprecedented and for which it is understandable Wallace had not prepared for. Wouldn't it have been cool to see Wallace, a man already established as a great leader and bringing something new to the battlefield, only to be beaten by another secret weapon that was the fruit of Edward's brutal conquest of the Celtic peoples? But no, it'd be better to see him simply betrayed by his friends (including Moray which I don't even have the time to go into) and see a bunch of idiots mob the field. This also robs us of a more accurate glimpse into Edward I who was also a brilliant military commander. His victories weren't entirely dependent on his huge bankroll that allowed him to pay people not to fight him.

But the worst is the relationship between Wallace and the Princess of Wales. The possibility of such a thing happening is beyond ridiculous. They never sent her unprotected into Scotland to talk to Wallace, she never went up to the tower of London to talk to him, she never met him in person. It's more likely she would have had an affair with Robert the Bruce. “But she didn't meet him either”, you might say. EXACTLY. To top it all off, the movie tries to give the viewer the impression that the whole Plantagenet line dies with Edward I as she's carrying Wallace's kid and she plans to depose Edward II. Well, it's true that Isabella did depose her husband but you'd be wrong to think her son was any friend to the Scots. Edward III spent the first few years of his rule removing power from his mom, executing her lover and then testing out the newly completed English longbowmen armies on his northern neighbours. The only reason he didn't finish the job and take over Scotland entirely is because he had bigger fish to fry: France. He just wanted to kill as many Scots as possible with minimal effort so they wouldn't bother him when he went away.

The cherry on top of this mess is the ending scene, which is not only unhistorical but also nonsensical. In it, Robert the Bruce stands before his army, preparing to go have his crown endorsed by the English. He then decides that he's not going to suffer this indignity and leads his men to charge the fields of Bannockburn, where, we are told, they win their freedom. First of all, if Robert the Bruce was successfully crowned king, and the English supported it, they would have, by definition, won their freedom. The Simpsons' equivalent of this would be the McBain scene, “I surrender!”, “Not so fast.” . The whole reason Bannockburn had to be fought was because they hadn't won their freedom. So basically most of the film was complete crap but it was still mildly entertaining. The fight scenes, while retarded, have a visceral impact that I don't find in many war films. Imagine how much better it could have been if it was made by people that actually respected the time period they were trying to film.

Oh, and they also fucked up the longbowmen.

4. Kingdom of Heaven
One of the problems with Kingdom of Heaven is how close it came to being one of the most accurate medieval period movies ever. If you want to see a pretty authentic representation of medieval weapons, armour and their use, you need look no farther than this film. The scene where Godfrey is teaching Balian fencing and the fight that immediately follows it is one of my favourites in any movie. I especially love the German character's invocation of Trial by Combat, an actual method of dispute settlement according to medieval English law (although I think the scene happened in France but you get the idea). Moreover, there was fertile ground here for a good movie as the downfall of the Kingdom of Jerusalem and the beginning of the Third Crusade is pretty cool subject matter. Unfortunately, the whole thing crumbles in the face of the complete misrepresentation of how politics and religion played into the events the film depicts.

Ridley Scott's message in this film seems to be something like, “the more things change, the more things stay the same.” He makes a movie where most of the problems between the various foreign and domestic cultures in the middle east are caused by religious zealots, whose violent and fundamentalist interpretation of their own faith leads them to be intolerant of any other belief system. The movie ends with a black screen with the powerful lines “...nearly a thousand years later, peace in the Kingdom of Heaven remains elusive.” In other words, “Then as now, if only more people were as religiously ambivalent and politically liberal as Balian and the other protagonists, the middle east could be peaceful.” Well, it's pretty obvious that a lot of the problems that plague the middle east now are not the same ones as a thousand years ago, and to think so demonstrates ignorance of Muslim history more than it does knowledge of the Crusades. 

This bone-headed message is not only utter bullshit, it completely goes against one of the main reasons history is interesting. It is a huge mistake (and highly arrogant) to think that people have perceived the world the same as we do today. Trying to get a handle of the mentality of a few connected nations who left behind a wealth of written records is pretty much a full time job for classicists. History never repeats itself and to present the conflicts in this way is not only misleading, it's lazy. There was no such thing as the religious tolerance Balian spouts about all faiths having equal claim to the Holy Land and in trying to create a lead character we could all identify with, they created a hero who is both ingenuous and generic. 

They also missed out on some really cool political intrigue by making the aggressively religious people the primary antagonists. Guy of Lusignan was never a Templar, and is a prime example of a continental European and newcomer to the Holy Land creating political turmoil. Making the Templars the “bad guys” again misrepresents history and presents us with a story far too simple and bland to be satisfying.

Ridley Scott and the scriptwriter William Monahan have made statements that they are aware of their film's inaccuracies, but that they had to be done because without them, we wouldn't understand the truth about the period. Yeah, you need to misrepresent the past so that people won't misunderstand the past. Makes perfect sense. This is the biggest insult to the intelligence of the audience and merely shows that Ridely Scott, the supposed artist, is willing to cow tow to the lowest common denominator like everybody else. 

The reality is that Scott has an opinion about the state of the modern Middle East and he totally screws with the historical record so he can clumsily shoehorn his message into his tale about the past. By doing so, he robs us of learning information that is not only fascinating, but information that he implicitly promised by dressing his film up as authentic history. In short, the movie was incredibly annoying with some fantastic scenes and an impeccable design aesthetic.

3. The Passion of the Christ
One thing that might spare the Passion of the Christ from this list (and almost did) was the fact that the events in Christ's life have no truly definitive historical form. Mel Gibson's interpretation is really no more or less right (from a historical perspective) than The Last Temptation of Christ or Godspell. I don't want to embroil myself in a religious argument quagmire, but the telling of Jesus' life is not one that can be told in a way that would satisfy the historical record. All versions would involve some amount of fiction. Now, I'm not saying Christ didn't actually ever exist (there is enough evidence to satisfy most historians and we usually assume other figures (like Pericles or Pythagoras) have lived even though we only have third hand information about them as well). But because the life and deeds of Christ also conform to mythological accounts that predate his life, there cannot help but be some myth-making in the tale. This is not bad and is only a problem if you're some kind of biblical literalist (in which case you are beyond intellectual redemption anyway). The Catholics know about this and it is nothing to be threatened by. Moreover, Mel has never claimed that his film is an accurate portrayal of history so it's not Kingdom of Heaven style false advertising.

So, why is this film on the list? Basically, because of popular assumptions about it. As movies have developed, budgets have grown and special effects have improved, films become more realistic (or at least more visually powerful which, for some, translates into realism). Take Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves. Don't get me wrong I like this movie, but I know that when this first came out (and even to his day) audiences felt like they were getting a more authentic experience because it was “up to date.” That this Robin Hood was more true to life or the legend because it looked totally bitchin' when he shot that guy in the face. In reality, it's no more true, just more amped up and 90sesque (again, I think the movie is awesome). The same is true, only far more so, with the Passion of the Christ. For example, because everybody is running around speaking Latin and Aramaic, people assume that it's probably the most accurate film about the period. 

The irony here is that the Latin the Romans are speaking is the ecclesiastical Latin of the Medieval church, not the classical Latin of the period. Moreover, the film lacks the true universal language of the time, Greek, which would have been used by both Romans and Hebrews to communicate. Small and anal points, I know, but they are very telling ones. The movie has a lot of detail that would make one assume it was historically accurate, but in reality they are just details of the religious fantasy that only exists in the religious framework Mel believes in. 

The use of ecclesiastical Latin, nails in palms rather than wrists, styles of clothing and social terminology were deviations that conform to the Catholic tradition, not to the facts of the day. These were intentional on Gibson's part because the film is a religious message, not an account of history. However, because of the big budget, optical and computer effects, over-the-top violence, overacting and, most of all, all the trappings of apparent historical authenticity added by Gibson, everyone seems to think that THIS is the film that delivers the straight dope on JC. Like all other filmmakers didn't have the ability, budget or balls to make the REAL story. Look at that blood, man! It's real! Look, I didn't cut away like most movies when the cross-nailing happens! You know why? 'Cause it's more real, man! Genuine Roman cat-o-nine tails? You know it! Check out Monica Bellucci's boobs! All real, baby!

I even met someone who thought it was the duty of all humanity to watch this film so we could truly feel Christ's pain and sacrifice. Like it was goddamn Schindler's List or something. Let me tell you something: religious or not, if you think you're closer to understanding and feeling Christ's suffering because you watched a movie, you might need more help than modern medicine can provide. You need to go to Abu Ghraiband and receive a waterboarding or something. 

If watching a man get whipped and beaten to a pulp for hours on TV is a religious experience, then myself and the boys of my generation are about the most religious people you'll ever see. I was addicted to Mortal Kombat for a few years so I can only imagine how many epiphanies I must have had while I uppercutted three heads off Sub-Zero and threw him into a pit of spikes. People have denounced violent movies and games and say that they incite violence because children get confused between movies and reality. I don't know about kids, but that assessment is certainly true for the Jesus freak squad (and they are legion) who venerate this film and its authenticity.

2. The New World
Don't get me wrong, the Europeans were pretty cruel and immoral in their invasion of the Americas. It's a huge issue that takes way too long to deal with properly so I'll just say: yes, the Europeans weren't very nice to the natives. I know this, you know this, everyone knows this (even the racists who think it was justified know this). However, it is this message that predominates this spectacularly boring film at the expense of historical accuracy.

I'll give you an example: You know how the Europeans were a pretty greedy lot, right? How can we fit this factoid into a movie that's only a mere 150 hours long? Well, what do greedy people do? You guessed it: they dig for gold. From pirates to Scrooge McDuck, human (and uh... I guess, avian) greed is best summed up by gold lust. Also, the English settlers in Jamestown famously needed the help of the natives through that first winter right? How do we establish this? Like I said, we don't have all the time in the world here. I know! We'll kill two birds with one stone by establishing that the settlers couldn't support themselves because they were so busy digging for gold, they forgot to grow crops, go fishing or even DIG A WELL. That's right. Clear-thinking John Smith is able to help out his fellow countrymen because he is able to see through the gold mine bullshit and convince them to dig a well for drinking water instead. John comes up with this bold plan, fresh out of his stay with the natives. While living them, he saw their idyllic life where apparently they sing and dance all day and pick fresh food off the ground. 

Things aren't so easy for the English settlers because they spend so much time being evil and European that they turn their village into a small-scale version of the Warsaw ghetto. But when he goes back to Jamestown, he is made the leader (they killed the old one you know) and is forced to deal with the aforementioned drinking water problem, infighting, disease, starvation and, worst of all, snotty-nose English boys who can barely speak their own language and look they they came straight out of the world of A Clockwork Orange. All the while with a really bored look on his face. Most of his solutions involve him walking around looking really disappointed by everything and wishing he was somewhere else. Tell me something: if John Smith learned so much about the sanctity of human life from the natives, why does he look like he's just waiting around for all his fellows to die so he can go back to Pocahontas rather than actually doing something to improve the situation?

I could go on about this forever, but the point is that the movie is historically inaccurate because Terrence Malick wanted to say more about European colonisation than would fit into the events of the film. The full scope of European cruelty and greed couldn't be seen in the real events, so the solution is to make all the European problems a result of the fact that they were basically immoral and not, you know, embarking on a mission that was difficult and dangerous by its own nature. And forget about his portrayal of the natives as peaceful and with no concept of ownership. In real life, they attacked the town within a few weeks of its founding without provocation! I'm not saying they were wrong for not wanting the Europeans there but the film omits these facts for the sake of its unhistorical message. I've got way more to say but it would take too long. Suffice it to say, this film annoys me.

1. Timeline
As you may have gathered, a big thing that annoys me is the sacrifice of history because of some kind of message the filmmaker wants to spread. Kingdom of Heaven, the Passion of the Christ and the New World exploit historical people and events for the political and religious statements they are trying to make. What annoys me further is that they are not up front about this and allow their films to masquerade as fact when they know full well that it's complete bullshit. If you want to railroad the past to prove some ill-advised and uneducated opinions, at least have the balls to own up to it. 

However, this is not so with Timeline. Timeline is simply one of the stupidest movies about the past ever made and it does this for absolutely no reason I can perceive. “Wait!” I hear a hypothetical person in my head cry. “So was Pathfinder, and that didn't make your list!” But the very concept of Pathfinder (what would happen if Vikings fought the Native Americans) makes the end product unsurprising. What is infuriating about Timeline is that it's based on a book (another one by Michael Crichton) that was not only really good, but actively denounced the sort of historical prejudice, arrogance, laziness and stupidity that possessed the filmmakers who created this garbage. Whereas, the novel worked hard to dispel commonly held medieval clichés and falsehoods, the movie brings all of them back and more.

I tried re watching the film for the purposes of this list but I am at a loss of what to write. Even the action is terrible which, yet again, was masterful in the book. Apparently a lot of it was done by medieval reenactors which goes a long way to explaining things. Nothing gives combat in the middle ages a worse name than the likes of the SCA, and their “style” is all over this tripe. You'd be better off calling in the local D&D club for your fighting needs. But seriously, it's so thoroughly bad it's hard to pick out highlights of awfulness.

Simply put, the movie got everything from both history and the book completely wrong and just about any medieval movie would be better. And that's saying something because most of them suck. And could somebody please tell me why they keep casting Gerard Butler in various period films in which he is never Scottish? The hypothetical man now cries: “Sean Connery is Scottish and he's been in many period films where he's English and even Russian!” I know. It works because he's a good actor with stage presence. I don't buy Butler as a Geat, Dracula, a Spartan King or the Phantom of the Opera. Even the idea of him as a modern man who travels through time and would fit in the medieval period seems hard to swallow. The only film I could imagine liking him in is a biopic about Gerard Butler, and his daily activities of eating, sleeping, getting his mail and starring in movies as a time and space displaced Scotsmen. I don't have much to say about Timeline other than it is the epitome of historical crap films and there is absolutely no excuse. The only book they would have had to crack to make a decent film is the very one it was supposed to have been based on.

Best Record Producers

The role of the producer in the making of records is one that is as varied as the bands they work with. Their basic job description is to guide the recording process but this seemingly innocuous role invariably leads them to make important contributions to the sound of the music both technically and artistically.

5. Phil Spector

One cannot talk about the role of record producer for any length of time without eventually bringing up Phil Spector. The reason is that he practically invented his own job and the jobs of everyone that followed after him.

However, he is definitely not the best producer because many of the approaches he pioneered are also some of the most hated qualities that producers can have. Spector would leach onto a promising band when he thought he could use them and then throw them away like yesterday's garbage when something better came along, destroying their careers and relegating them to the dust bin of rock history. He often had little regard for singers and musicians as artists or even as human beings. (For examples, see his entire marriage to Ronnie Spector. The time when he showed her the glass coffin he intended to put her in if he ever had to kill her comes to mind.) He is the archetypal cigar chomping (in the figurative sense) music industry big shot who looks at a band and sees dollar signs over their heads. Moreover, he was an enemy of the LP as a means of artistic expression and only believed in one-off, money-making singles. Although a sonic innovator, he was also a sonic Luddite as he opposed the use of stereo channels because he thought it took power away from him and gave it to the listener. I'm not kidding, he's that much of a megalomaniac. He would also sometimes ignore a band's artistic intent and decide to create the songs he wanted to make, famously in his contributions to the Beatles' Let it Be. It's because of the increased power he brought to the role of producer, as well as his abuse of that power that some bands handle production by themselves. They don't want some money hungry big wig watering down their music and turning them into corporate whores, all the while glorifying himself and lining the pockets of the record company. Entire careers in record production have been forged by people not doing what Phil Spector did.

So why in God's name is he on this list? Well, quite simply, all production careers have been forged by doing things that he did do. He changed the rules by which music would be made. From a technical standpoint, his Wall of Sound treatment was one of the final pieces of the puzzle that needed to be created for modern rock music to be formed. However, the very nature of his role was one that the industry would have to take on as the idea of rock music evolved beyond the concept of recording the sound of a dance hall group. Besides, who else should be here? I'm not saying that there are only four good producers so we might as well put ol' Spector here to fill up space but seriously, anyone else in his place would just seem like a hollow move on my part. Take Glyn Johns. He's been involved with virtually every rock band that ever mattered during the 60s and 70s. Clearly he was doing something right, and his resume is beyond impressive. Likewise, Martin Hannett, Gil Norton, Nigel Godrich and Scott Litt have been great with their respective bands. But these achievements are eclipsed by the sheer scope of Spector's work and influence.

4. Brian Eno

Eno is definitely not a hands off producer. Well, come to think of it, a producer that is hands off would be a producer not doing his job. What I mean is, when you hear a record that he was involved with, you'll invariably narrow your eyes, pick up the sleeve/case, scan for the producer's name, and nod your head in confirmation. His fingerprints are all over the recordings he supervises and his use of sound dynamics to create feelings of space, texture and atmosphere are unmistakable. When you hire Brian Eno as a producer, what you are basically doing is hiring him as a temporary member of the band. However, this is a good thing. Brian Eno is a bona fide musician and artist in his own right. He was a founding member of Roxy Music, had a solo career in which he almost single handedly invented the genre of ambient music (a movement which would have a profound influence on synth pop, industrial, electronic music and pretty much any music that involves sythns, samplers and computers in its creation) and also would later record records with former clients like David Byrne. Eno's production would certainly not work with all bands (or if it did, it would probably be because he didn't use any of the techniques that make him unique). However, when paired with the right band at the right time, he can raise the music to heights that would have been completely out of reach for the group in his absence. A key example of this would be U2: a band whose style and approach were good in concept but never properly executed until they teamed up with Eno. While David Bowie, Devo and Talking Heads were obviously amazing in their own right, their decision to work with Brian created some of their best and most iconic work. A jack of all trades he is not, but his artistic presence contributes greatly to not only the records he produces, but to the history of rock music itself.

3. Steve Albini

First off, Steve Albini would hate to be on this list as he has repeatedly demanded that he be credited and referred to as an engineer. However, that is precisely why I have included him. Albini's approach to production is to record a band's sound in the truest way possible. In this sense, he is the ultimate in independent record creation which seeks to give an authentic representation of a band's art that has not been touched by the hands of chart-performance oriented businessmen. When I talked about Brian Eno, I said that when you hire him as a producer, you're also hiring him as a band member. With Steve Albini, when you hire him as a producer, you're hiring him to not be your producer and leave your music well enough alone. However, in a subtle way, I'd argue that Albini makes important artistic contributions through the use of of his seemingly hands off approach. Some might compare the studio to a machine and the engineer is simply a technician with the skills to operate it. In this sense, an engineer contributes artistically to a band as much as the pilot or bus driver who gets them around, or the roadies that set up their equipment. However, it seems to me that the studio is more like an instrument than a mere machine. While I'm sure Steve would never make any ultimatums to a band, his function as a recorder of music would involve suggestions and directions that are, by necessity, artistic in nature. Records he works on have a reputation for their raw, uncompromising sound, and he is often sought after for specifically this reason (although he's hardly a one trick pony in this regard). In any case, Albini's contributions to the role of producer (or lack thereof) have helped bring forth some of the best music that followed punk rock, most famously with the Pixies, Nirvana and of course with his own seminal bands: Big Black, Rapeman and Shellac.

2. Brian Wilson/ Jimmy Page

Brian Wilson is pretty much the poster child for the do-it-yourself approach to record production. Phil Spector imbued the role of producer with its power, but Brian Wilson was the first one to absorb that power and bring it back to within the band's sphere of influence. Pet Sounds is pretty much the Citizen Kane of rock records as it saw Brian Wilson fully take the reins of all elements of record creation: writing the songs, directing the other band members, singing and playing on every track, recording the vast array of voices and instruments that comprised every single track, and finally, overcoming his disability (deafness in one ear if you can imagine) to create one of the most complex and layered mono mixes of all time. All in the single-minded pursuit of his own vision. His direction alienated the other members of the Beach Boys but the end result demonstrated that when the producer was in full alignment with a talented band (as would happen by necessity when the two are one and the same) the result was much more powerful than when the group was the hapless slave of a puppet master like Spector.

So why is he sharing the penultimate spot with Pagey? Well, although I have to give Wilson credit for being the prototype, Jimmy Page was the guy that embodied the role of band leader/producer in a manner that was much more stable and organic than with Brian and the Beach Boys. Somewhat like his idol Spector (only way less creepy and evil), Wilson's role as band producer was inexorably tied to his growing dictatorial tenancies and mental instability. Page proved that a member of the band could be trusted to be a better and more appropriate producer than anyone else and also not demand that songs be cut from the recording schedule for fear that they were starting fires hundreds of miles away. Page not only had uncompromising artistic vision, he also had more technical studio ability than the top engineers in his field. Often, the impressive sound of Led Zeppelin records was achieved in spite of the involvement of people like Glyn Johns and Ron Nevison; not because of them. The albums have an explosive aural quality that was unprecedented at the time and unsurpassed today. This was entirely because of Page's contribution as the band's only producer.

1. George Martin

First off, George Martin produced every Beatles album, meaning he has been involved with the creation of 12 of the greatest rock records EVER. This doesn't necessarily mean he is the best however. After all, we know how good the Fab Four were and just because they are the best at what they do, doesn't mean their producer was the greatest at his craft. Maybe the Beatles did a fair bit of their production work by themselves, à la Brian Wilson, and Martin was merely a hired hand.

Well, the long and short of this question is: they didn't do it by themselves. The Beatles may have been great song writers and musicians but the demise of Apple, the loss of legal control over their own material and the slow financial and personal unraveling of the Beatles Empire following the death of Brian Epstein are testaments to the fact that these guys probably couldn't be trusted to maintain a home aquarium if left to their own devices. One of the reasons that the Beatles' music found the form it did was because George Martin helped record it. However, he was not only able to make the studio express the band's ideas, he was also capable of constructive and artistic contribution. When Lennon recorded Strawberry Fields, at the time a simple and unadorned acoustic piece, Martin was able to say “I think I know where you're going with this”, combine Lennon's two vocal takes into a varispeeded hybrid and add all the horns and extra instrumentation. In effect, he made the song what it is.

Now think about this for a second. This means that when the greatest team of rock/pop song writers in the history of humanity handed their ideas over to this man for guidance, he was not only able to fully realise the songs to their creators' satisfaction but sometimes actually improve upon them. Moreover, the Beatles were also one of the most important innovators in rock, not only being ahead of the curve artistically but often drawing the curve for others as they went. And yet, for all their changes and progressions, they never once changed producers. George Martin, an unassuming and for all appearances, a very straightforward and square individual, was able to immediately accept, understand, process, record and contribute to the cutting edge of rock music during its renaissance. How many of us, if presented with a McCartney song, would say, “Yeah it's good but I think you didn't fully capture the essence of your own idea and I think I have what it takes to improve your music.” And the Beatles never once felt that his involvement betrayed their artistic intentions. In sum, the magnitude of his achievements is staggering. He's still at it too, as he and his son recently released Love: without hyperbole, the greatest Beatles mashup record ever. Successful production is always a balance between the roles of sound technician, artistic editor and musical guide. Never has this balance been more harmonious than with George Martin.