Samus Aran: Chozo?

On my personal blog I recently made a post about whether or not Samus Aran was transgender.  But while writing it, one little thing bothered me and I thought I'd expand it into a full blog.  Plus I just really like babbling about Metroid.

I first played Metroid in 1986.  I immediately fell in love with the universe, even though not many details were actually given.  The instruction booklet had some info about space pirates, the Galactic Federation Police, and other events leading up to the game, but that's about it.  I scanned all other media for more information, and I accepted whatever I found as canon.  One Nintendo magazine said that Samus used to be an acrobat.  Boom, canon.  Kid Icarus had an alternate version of Metroids called Komaytos.  Boom, shared universe canon.

I was convinced there were further secrets in the game if only I explored hard enough.  There were so many secret areas (actually glitches) you could reach by letting doors close on you and climbing up through the walls.  I just knew if I found the right one, I'd get to see more of the story.  One of the secret codes was "Justin Bailey" - I was sure that was the name of another character in the Metroid universe.

While there were elements of Metroid in other media (such as the silly "Captain N" cartoon), real canon information would not be forthcoming until the release of Metroid 2 in 1991.  Until then, I had to make up my own story.  So, I drew my own comics.  First I drew pictures of every enemy in the game.  I drew and defined several different types of metroids, basing them off the instruction booklet, their appearance in the game, and even other fan art.  Then I started drawing my own original enemies and allies.

In 1989 I drew a really bad comic book adaptation of the Metroid game.  I followed this with two additional issues, the second of which was a collection of short stories.  At one point it crossed over with another sci-fi comic I was drawing, The Bounty Hunters (which starred Boba Fett).  Finally I combined both universes into one, with a series called "Space Stories". I continued drawing Space Stories all throughout high school, college, and a bit beyond.

In my universe, the Space Pirates were humans, who dressed like ancient Earth pirates despite their futuristic technology.  If I'd known how they'd eventually look in Super Metroid, I would gladly have gone with that instead, because my designs were ridiculously silly.  My version of Samus Aran had green hair, because that's what she looked like when I played her in the game.  When I later realized that her hair's only green because of the Varia suit, I threw in a line about her dying it green.

So yeah, the lack of real canon, combined with my own dumb ideas, made me write a lot of crazy things.  Now, I loved the next two sequels - Metroid 2 (Gameboy, 1991) and Super Metroid (SNES, 1994), but they didn't really expand the universe much.  Goofy as it was, my comics were still the best canon I had.  So, when Nintendo finally got around to fleshing out Samus Aran's universe, in some ways it was already too late.  I'm glad they made the effort, but the results didn't always make me happy.

For one thing, they finally gave Samus an official look for when she's out of uniform.  There had been several shots of her unarmored form before, in strategy guides and issues of Nintendo Power, and of course at the end of the various games.  But none of these were consistent; they all just looked like someone told the artist, "Draw a woman."  It wasn't until her "Zero Suit" that they all started drawing her the same way, and I can't say I love the result.  I was hoping for someone sort of butch, attractive but still tough looking.  Instead we got a blonde centerfold with bosoms that defy gravity.  I've grown to accept it (I even main ZSS in Smash Bros), but it's definitely not what I would have chosen.

And then there's her personality in "Other M"... Okay, I'm not going to go into too much detail here, because the internet's already full of bad Other M reviews.  The gist is that Samus acted way too subservient in that game.  To be fair, it's possible they were doomed from the start.  Samus Aran had been around for 24 years by that point, and the earlier games didn't really show much of her personality.  During that time different players had built up different ideas of what her personality was like, and when Other M didn't line up with their headcanon, it felt like betrayal.  But that's just a possible explanation, not an excuse.  It really isn't a very good game so don't look to me to defend it.


But the thing the bothered me the most was...  the manga.  I'm sorry, I know that's sacrilege for some people.  But the "raised by Chozo" thing really ruined my headcanon.  Okay, some background for those who don't know what I'm talking about.  In the original Metroid, you occasionally find powerups held by statues of strange bird people, called Chozo.  In the manga, it is explained that Samus was orphaned as a child, and raised by Chozo.  They trained her to be a good fighter, and infused her with technology.  This explains why their weapons are compatible with her suit.

It's not a terrible explanation, but here's my problem.  When I played through the original Metroid, I always felt like the space pirates had built their base in the ruins of some unknown ancient civilization.  As Samus explored it, I thought it was cool that it was as mysterious to her as it was to the player.  Who were these weird bird people?  What killed them off?  Why does their ancient technology work so well with her suit?  I hoped these questions would be answered in future games, but not as backstory.

The developers admit some of their inspiration came from Alien, so I'll use that as an example.  Remember when the landing party in Alien entered the bizarre ship, and came across the long-dead "Space Jockey" sitting at the control panel?  Remember the sense of awe?  This creature was obviously technologically advanced, and yet it also looks so old.  And despite its power, something killed it from the inside.  Now what if Kane had suddenly said, "Oh, these guys.  Yeah, I grew up living next door to some of these dudes.  And that means this must be an egg transport ship.  Make sure we avoid the cargo hold, there's facehuggers there."  Doesn't that kill the mood a bit?

So, no, the Chozo story is not for me.  I can accept Samus being transgender, but raised by bird guys is too much. 

(Book) Star Wars: Lost Stars

I love sci-fi, but I'm often annoyed that it's considered a genre rather than a setting.  Whether a sci-fi movie is action, horror or drama, it gets put on the same "Sci Fi" shelf at the video store.  Or it would if there were still video stores.  Genres have been getting more specific in recent years, though.  I've seen bookstores with a section for "teenage paranormal romance", which is pretty specific (if troubling). 

Most Star Wars books I've read were pretty much the same genre, though; a sort of action/adventure/drama blend.  There were a couple of short stories that leaned toward horror, but for the most part Star Wars fiction seems to stick to a formula.  Lost Stars is a first for me, though, as it is primarily a Star Wars romance.  It takes you through the events of the original Star Wars trilogy, but from the perspective of two students at the Imperial Academy. 

The Empire may be evil, but many of the actual Imperials are good people who have been misled about what is best for the universe.  These two students are some of the most noble-hearted characters one can imagine, but they are indoctrinated by the Empire's lies.  Eventually one of them realizes the truth about the Empire, putting them on opposite sides of the war, but still very much in love.  And for the sake of spoilers that's as far as I'll go into the plot.

The characters are fleshed out and believable.  Their rationalizations for following the Empire actually make sense.  If you've ever wondered how evil organizations (both fictional and real) can gain so many followers when they're "clearly" monsters, this book does a good job of showing their point of view.  The Empire tightly controls information, distorts the Rebels' motives, and promises a future where everyone prospers and lives in harmony.  Even when the Empire commits atrocities too big to hide, those actions are explained as being for the greater good.  It's true that the high ranking Imperials are greedy and power mad, but the underlings generally believe that the Empire is a force of good, and that the Rebels are terrorists.  It's so well presented that it makes me worry about my own government.

Being a love story, it's not for everybody.  But don't worry, it's not some shallow Twilight angst-fest, or steamy Harlequin romance.  It's just a decent sci-fi drama that centers on a forbidden relationship.  And it's easily the best Star Wars book I've read.

Star Wars: The Force Awakens

I'll try to make this spoiler-free, but it really depends on what you consider a spoiler.

Okay, let's get this out of the way right now:  This movie is fantastic.  It's everything we were hoping to get out of the prequels.  It's well-paced, action packed, creative, and visually stunning.  I can't remember being happier watching a movie.  At certain points I was actually stressed because I was afraid the movie would end soon.  If the movie had been four hours long, I'd still have come out saying, "Just five more minutes."  It's not perfect, but it's easily better than any of the prequels, and at least as good as the worst of the original trilogy.

That said, a lot of the scenes were rehashes of scenes from earlier movies.  There were many times when I found myself thinking, "This is just like that scene in A New Hope."  But that's okay, because everything that was redone, was redone much better.  The writing was better, the acting was better, and the visuals were much more crisp.  When I talk about visuals, I'm not just saying the special effects were better.  I mean the scenes were shot so much more dramatically, really pulling you into the movie.

I will say, a couple of the CGI characters were too cartoony.  One evil character in particular looked very much like a silly caricature of Gollum... and he was supposed to be scary.  We saw it in 3D, and it was excellent.  I bought 3D tickets by accident, and I was afraid I would regret it, but I'm very glad I did.  I do still plan to see it in 2D, but if you're on the fence, see it in 3D.

I like the new characters, though I was surprised there weren't more of them.  I was expecting to have to learn half a dozen new names, but I found I'd already subliminally memorized them from the toys and other media.

Anyway, there's not much else I can say without spoilers, and there's little point in this review anyway.  I can't imagine anyone reading this blog who isn't already a Star Wars fan, and I can't imagine any Star Wars fan skipping this movie.  But if you're worried about how Disney is going to handle the franchise, you can put your mind at rest.  I was skeptical, but I now have high hopes for the future of Star Wars.  It's in better hands than ever.

This is probably the vaguest blog I've ever written, but I wanted to get all that down before the negative nerf herders of the internet swoop down and pick the movie apart like a pack of womp rats.  I am officially declaring it right now, before they have a chance to go too far:   

If you don't like this movie, you aren't a true Star Wars fan.

(I don't really mean that... like what you want, and call yourself a fan if you want.  But I don't want to hear a lot of stupid complaints from people who consider themselves Star Wars fans.)

Super Mario Maker

Christmas of 1985, I got my Nintendo Entertainment System, along with Duck Hunt, Gyromite, and of course Super Mario Bros.  Within the next few months I expanded my collection.  Two of the games - Excitebike and Wrecking Crew - allowed you to create your own levels.  I loved designing my own levels, and wished more games had the feature.  Specifically, I always wished Super Mario Bros had a level edit mode.

So to put it simply, Super Mario Maker is the game I've been wanting since 1985.  I do wish it had come out closer to 1985 than to 2015, but better late than never, I suppose.  Let's face it, if it had come out earlier, it wouldn't have had nearly as many options.  SMM allows you to choose from four graphical modes, and you can share your levels online, neither of which would have been possible in 1985.

So, how does it measure up to my 30 years of expectations?  I love it!  It gives you a great selection of tools, lots of options, and some neat little Easter eggs.  It's like two games in one - it's fun to create your own levels, but it's also fun to play the levels others have made.

Just For Fun

Of course, Sturgeon's Law is in full effect here; you don't come across many truly great levels.  But that's all right.  It's easy to recognize bad levels right away and skip them.  I do wish it had more options for finding specific types of levels; maybe future updates will help on that front.

But the bottom line is that it's the near-perfect Mario game.  It's got the best elements of the four best Super Mario games, it's got an unlimited number of levels, and you can make your own stages.  I can't imagine any Mario fan not wanting to own this one.

On a personal note: My preordered copy arrived the same weekend my my wife went into the hospital.  (See my personal blog for more details on that.)  I considered trying to get a refund right away, because we needed to watch every cent.  But it was also my birthday present, and I had bought it online using reward points, so I kept it.

Yo Dawg I Heard You Like Goombas

It turned out to be the perfect game to have around while my wife recovered.  I took nearly a month off work, most of which I spent sitting near my wife, ready to cater to her needs.  The great thing about Super Mario Maker is that you can play it in short bursts.  As a maker, you can save your progress at any time if you need to do something.  As a player, you only play one level at a time, and most of the levels are relatively short.

There's no deep plot to hold your attention, and there's no drought between save points.  I could make involved levels while my wife napped, or play a few short levels when she was awake and might need something.  I'm glad it came out when it did.

If you have Super Mario Maker and want to follow me, my Miiverse ID is: Fury1958
My Super Mario Maker Bookmark page is here: Fury1958

Here's some YouTube videos of someone playing my levels:

My Reviewing Style

Now that I've sorted all my entertainment blogs here, I thought I'd babble a bit about my reviewing style. I'm hoping to get in the habit of posting more often, even if it's just a few sentences about the most recent movie I've seen.

I think I'm a generally optimistic reviewer, at least compared to the rest of the internet. People these days are overly critical, IMO, or maybe only the most jaded opinions are loud enough to be heard. For me, the worst thing a movie can be is boring. Beyond that, I don't get overly judgmental about hard-to-swallow plots, bad dialogue, or unrealistic science.

Also, some people demand every movie to be a blockbuster. TV shows can have filler episodes, but theatrical movies are expected to knock your socks off with every installment. I don't feel that way. Some movies are just meant to be enjoyable popcorn munchers. I'm fine with some movies being smart and subdued, while others are mindless and energetic. I like bad movies as much as good movies, as long as they're entertaining. And I've explained in previous blogs why I don't share society‘s disdain for remakes, reboots, and sequels.

Now... all that said, that doesn't mean all my posts are going to be glowing reviews. I might like ten movies for every one I hate, but sometimes only the bad one inspires me to write a blog about it. But only sometimes. Overall, I think my reviews have been pretty positive.

Reviled movies I Like

Just for fun, here's some movies other people hated that I liked.

Jurassic Park 3: Like I said above, not everything needs to be a blockbuster. JP3 is a perfectly fun action movie that takes place in the JP universe. It has an Excuse Plot that probably took ten minutes to write; all they had to do was think of a reason to drop these characters onto the island so they could try to escape. It doesn't move the series forward, and overall it feels less like a movie and more like an episode of "Jurassic Park The Series". And that's fine with me. It's never boring, it has good special effects (though maybe dated now), and let's face it, I'm just a sucker for dinosaurs.

Green Lantern: This wasn't a great movie, but it was good campy fun. An enjoyable outing that didn't deserve all the hate it got.

Fantastic Four (2005): Same as above. Fun and cheesy, and really captures the family dynamic the group is supposed to have. I don't WANT them to make a serious movie about characters with these goofy powers. That would miss the point entirely, and I think 2015's terrible reboot just might be proof of that.

Catwoman: Okay, this really wasn't very good, and I have no desire to see it again. But I did like it more than I thought I would. This is one of those movies that had more bad reviews than it actually had viewers, and that's just unfair. People already reviewed it in their minds before it even came out, when they first released photos of Halle Berry in her costume. And while it was not a great film by any means, it was not even remotely as bad as people wanted it to be.

Star Wars prequels and Special Editions: It feels a little odd to defend a franchise that made so much money, but Star Wars has been such a big part of my life that I hate to see it endure unfair criticism. Episode I was a bit boring in spots, Episodes 2 & 3 have Hayden's wooden acting and a bland love story, but all movies have flaws. I still think people are holding these movies up to impossible standards, and they would have been better received if not for the expectations that (used to) come with STAR WARS. Regarding the Special Editions, the updated scenes in the theatrical versions were a bit jarring, but once they remastered them for DVD they got much better.

Beloved movies I Hate

But just to show I have unpopular opinions in both directions, here's some movies a lot of people seem to love, but that I dislike:

Most Quentin Tarantino films: I'm not against violent films. But Tarantino's films (at least those that I've seen) are violent in a way that just doesn't hold my interest. It's all bad people doing bad things to other bad people, and it's just not the reason I watch movies.

Most Westerns: I'm really not much into historical fiction in the first place, as I prefer settings with futuristic technology or magical fantasy lands. But Westerns in particular annoy me more than most other time periods. They're the essence of male fantasy, where all the men are macho, and the women are mostly MacGuffins. There have been a few Westerns I liked, but they're usually deconstructions of the genre.

The Bourne Identity series: I find this series so bland and repetitive, I just don't know how it got made into multiple movies.

Hated movies I Hate

And just to show that I don't always pick the opposite of whatever everybody else is doing, here's some movies most people hate that I also dislike:

Cool World: This one is significant to me, because it was one of the few times I've seen a movie in the theater by myself, and therefore formed an opinion with no chance of being influenced by those around me. Although there was one point late in the film when a young girl stood up and yelled, "This movie sucks!" (which was more entertaining than anything on the screen), but I can't call her influential because I'd already formed my opinion by then. I spent most of the movie thinking, ”They've got Street Fighter II in the lobby...”

Wayne's World 2: We walked out halfway through. 'nuff said.

Batman & Robin: Of course everyone blames this one for killing that series, but in some circles it's starting to make a comeback as a "so bad it's good" movie. I'll still watch it if it's on TV, and it's great fodder for Rifftrax. But good? No.

Alien 3: Alien is one of my favorite horror movies of all time. Aliens is one of my favorite action movies of all time. Alien 3 is one of my least favorite movies of all time.  I could rant for hours on the reasons I hate Alien 3. Some other time maybe.

Polarizing movies

And for the heck of it, here's some movies that people love or hate:

Twister: I love this movie. It's terrible, but it's awesome. In my house it is quoted constantly.

Independence Day: Honestly I'm not even sure if this movie is popular. I know it made an impact on Hollywood, but I also hear a lot of people thought it was dumb.  Depending on who you ask, it's either a great homage to classic sci-fi, or it rips off a lot of classic sci-fi.  Actually, I've found that for most people, the difference between an homage and a rip-off is whether they enjoyed it. Like, Airplane! is a parody/homage to lots of classic disaster movies, but Disaster Movie is just a rip-off.  Anyway, I like ID4. 

Titanic: It made gazillions of dollars and got stellar reviews, and yet every time anyone speaks of it, it's to say how much they hated it. Though to be fair, it's mostly the hype they hated.  I try to avoid judging a movie on its hype.

Obscure movies

And last but not least, a bad movie I like that you've never heard of.

Undercover Blues: Sometimes people latch on to movies without even knowing why. Undercover Blues is a harmless, forgettable comedy about a married couple of semi-retired secret agents. For some reason my wife and I love this movie, we've watched it dozens of times, and we quote it every bit as much as the Princess Bride. We've yet to meet anyone else who has even heard of it. Note that this is not a recommendation; I'm serious when I say you'll probably find it forgettable. I try not to show this one to people because, well, it's kind of fun having a movie that's just ours.

Like, Ant-Man and Stuff

Ant-man was exactly as good as I thought it would be. Not a blockbuster, but more of a low-key entry into the MCU. It might have been better suited for an arc on Agents of SHIELD than for a theatrical movie. But that's okay. I think it's too much to expect that every marvel movie is going to just explode from the screen and knock our socks off. As long as they're not outright boring, I'll probably still enjoy them.

I liked that it was something of a "Superhero comedy", even if I didn't really connect with a lot of the film's humor. Too many super hero movies feel like the same movie with a different skin, so I like that they're playing with the formula. I hope they play with it even more. I don't like "Super Hero" being a genre in itself, and I think there's plenty of room for super hero movies that are also comedy, horror, romance, or whatever. Overall, the movie didn't do a lot for me. We'll still buy the blu-ray for our collection, but I doubt we'll watch it over and over like we did with some of the other Avengers movies.

There's been a few disappointments lately. I didn't bother seeing Fantastic Four or Pixels after all their reviews, which is too bad because both of them could have been really interesting with the right direction. we started to watch Jupiter Ascending on Netflix, but only made it through the first 45 minutes or so. The special effects were nice,'but it just wasn't giving us enough exposition fast enough, and we got bored. But I didn't have high hopes for that one anyway.

Speaking of Netflix, we finally got around to binge-watching Daredevil. That was totally worth it. It's a bit on the bloody side, so you'll be covering your eyes a lot if you're as squeamish as KJ. But it's well written and does a good job of making you want to see what happens next.

I'm anxiously awaiting all the new super hero movies and TV shows, but I am worried that they're overdoing it. Eventually people will get sick of them, or there will be enough bad ones that it makes the whole genre look bad, and the market for super heros will crash. But I'm going to enjoy it as long as it lasts.

Reorganization

I'm reorganizing my blog a little bit.  From now on, blogs about movies, books, video games, and other entertainment will go here:
http://1958fury.blogspot.com/

Blogs about GLBT issues, politics, and other serious matters will go here:
http://1958-fury.blogspot.com/

Some older blog entries may appear on both pages for a while, but going forward I'm keeping the fluffy stuff away from the serious stuff.

My blog about Dungeons & Dragons and other RPGs remains here:
http://1958fury-campaignjournal.blogspot.com/

Jurassic World

I saw Jurassic World twice yesterday.  Once regular, and once in IMAX 3D.

I'd have to say it's the best movie I've seen in a long time.  No, it's not a Shakespearean masterpiece, but as a fun action movie / SFX showcase, it's top-notch.  There's no point where you're going to say, "wow, I didn't see that plot twist coming."  You'll guess pretty early which characters are going to die (hint: it's not the two kids).  And the bad guy's motivations are a bit floopy here and there, to the point where it felt like he was just the "designated evil dude".

So no, it's not going to win awards for the script.  The plot is forwarded by egotistical people making obviously bad decisions over and over again.  The occasional dramatic interludes felt like they were added as an obligation, so the writers didn't have to admit the whole movie was a tech demo.  And you know what?  I don't care.  It's okay if some movies are more like rides than serious stories.  And Jurassic World is definitely a ride.

The special effects have come a long way since the first one (or even the third one).  Watching the original Jurassic Park (which has been playing on TV non-stop) and JW in the same weekend has shown me just how much better CGI is now.  Back in 1993 JP had mind-blowing effects, and some of those shots make me cringe now. 

If you're wondering whether to see it in 2D or 3D, I would suggest 3D.  Trust me, I don't always like 3D.  I'm not an anti-3D snob like some people (*cough* Marty *cough*), but there are definitely some movies where it works better than others.  We saw Avengers: Age of Ultron in both 2D and 3D, and the 3D version frankly sucked.  But Jurassic World's 3D is crisp and well done.  Jurassic World begs for 3D.  It demands 3D.  It slaps its behind while moaning THREEEE DEEEE ME BABY!  ...or something.

It's funny, both the original Jurassic Park and Jurassic World both have a strong theme of "Don't play God."  In the first movie that meant, "Don't make dinosaurs."  But in the years between JP and JW, people have gotten used to dinos, and accepted them as just animals.  So now  "playing God" means designing brand new dinosaurs.  I guess in the next one, "playing God" will mean "don't give raptors jet packs and laser turrets."

(POTENTIAL SPOILERS)
Which makes me wonder where the next film will go.    Not to go into detail on the ending, but I doubt the next film will take place in the theme park.  Which is too bad.  I know they can't make the same movie over and over, but I love the Jurassic World setting.  Honestly, I would have been perfectly happy watching a movie where people visit the JW park and everything goes right.  I'd love it if the JW park was simply used as a background setting for movies in another genre.  A romantic comedy that happens to be set in Jurassic World?  I'm there.  I mean, 50 First Dates would have been 20% better if Adam Sandler had worked at Jurassic World instead of a marine park.

But given the military aspect of JW's plot, I have a theory that the next movie will be called something like "Jurassic War", and involve using dinos as weapons.  I'm not sure I want it to go in that direction, and if that happens I'll protest by only seeing it twice on opening weekend.

Anyway, to sum up:  I really liked Jurassic World, and I want a pet velociraptor.

Wii U - First Impressions

I got a bonus at work for having been there 15 years (yay me).  Don't worry, we're doing responsible stuff with the majority of it.  But I also wanted to splurge a little and get something just for myself.  So I, uh, got a Wii U.

I know, I know.  By most accounts, the Wii U is the least powerful (and least successful) of the three current generation systems, and I worry that I might be buying a failing product.

But as I get older, I find that I'm just not connecting with modern gamers. I have no interest in the first person shooters that dominate the XBox and Playstation systems. And when I do see an Xbox/Playstation game I actually want (like Alien: Isolation), it's usually also available on the PC.  But these days I'm more into playing retro-style games, and remakes/sequels of the games I played on my NES back in the 80s.

The Wii U is a really nifty system.  The tablet-like controller works very well, and seems like something all systems should do in the future.  They don't necessarily need to come with their own proprietary tablet controller like the Wii U, but I definitely think all future PS and Xbox systems ought to release apps that link the system to your iPad/Android/etc tablet (or even phone). Given how many things we do on video game systems now that don't even involve joysticks (Netflix, etc), controlling them with a tablet is a no-brainer.

A few minor complaints.  Setting up the system took forever, what with downloading and installing updates, and transferring everything from the old Wii to the new system.  And it is surprising that a new system in this day and age doesn't play DVDs or Blu-Rays.  And of course the game selection isn't very good yet, but I can live with that.  I only buy about one console game every six months anyway.

I got the bundle that comes with Mario Kart 8 and Nintendo Land.  Mario Kart has never looked better, and the tracks are extremely creative this time around.  I love the antigravity areas and the pretty underwater effects.  Even the retro tracks have lots of new features to keep things fresh.  The controls are spot-on perfect, and you can still use the wheel controllers from Mario Kart Wii.  It has a robust selection of characters and vehicles, and the DLC makes the selection even better.  I especially love the Legend of Zelda DLC.

Honestly, Mario Kart 8 has quickly become one of my top ten favorite games of all time.  No, better than that; I believe MK8 is one of mankind's top ten greatest achievements.  I'm not sure where it falls on the list, probably somewhere above the telephone but just below the Cheesy Gordita Crunch.

Nintendo Land, on the other hand, isn't exactly knocking my socks off.  Like the Wii's "Wii Sports" disc, Nintendo Land is pretty much a tech demo - a collection of shallow mini games designed to show off what you can do on the Wii U Gamepad.  I've only tried three or four of the games so far, and none of them made me want to play them again.  However, some of the reviews rave about how fun it is as a multiplayer game, so I'll hold off judgement until I've had a chance to play it with others.  I will say that all the tutorials are driving me nuts.  Nintendo Land could very well be called "Tutorial: The Game". 

So far I'm incredibly happy with the system.  If you want to friend me on the Wii U or any other system, here's all my friend codes:

MiiVerse: Fury1958 
3DS: 1306-5310-8353
Steam: 1958Fury
XBox 360: MattAndKJ

Super Smash Bros 3DS (...and Almost Good Games)

I've noticed a pattern when I review video games; I tend to give more backstory than actual review.   In my blog about Injustice: Gods Among Us, I spent as much time talking about the history of Mortal Kombat as I did about Injustice itself.  In my Alien: Isolation blog, I wrote more about the Commodore 64 Alien game than I did about Isolation.  I think this may just be my style.  If a game reminds me of other games, I like to make comparisons.  And don't get me started on ramblings where I talk about how I blog, such as this paragraph.  So if you want to skip to where I talk about Super Smash Bros, just scroll down to the bolded part.

Anyway... Before I write about Super Smash Bros for the 3DS, I want to talk for a minute about games that are awesome... except for the "game" part.  Games where the programmers went all-out in making the game as complete as possible, but still failed in the basic aspects of making it fun.

A lot of my examples are going to be from the Commodore 64.  The C64 was a peculiar machine - it was a computer that wanted to be a game system, or possibly vice-versa.  It had graphics that were a fair bit better than the Atari 2600, but not quite as good as the 8-bit Nintendo... except when they were.  Some programmers managed to get more out of the graphics than others.  Well, that's true of any system, but it was particularly glaring on the C64.  But the C64 controls were even more erratic.  It had ports for Atari 2600 joysticks, which aren't the most precise controllers in video game history anyway, but used on the C64 they were particularly mushy.

So anyway, the games:

Project Firestart (C64, 1989)

As far as I'm concerned, Project Firestart was the first "Survival Horror" computer game.  If ever a game came out that could be called "Resident Evil in space", this is it, and it was released years before the first Resident Evil.  You're sent to investigate a deep space research station, which sent out a distress call before going silent.  You dock with the station, and the first few halls are completely empty.  You hear nothing but your own echoing footsteps. Then you enter one room and see the mutilated body of a scientist, who used his last bit of energy to write a warning on the wall in his own blood.  The game shows you a quick closeup of the body as the music plays a scare chord.  As you continue to explore the station, you find many more bodies.  You access computers to find clues.  One one computer you find some journals that explain what's going on - the scientists had created some creatures for labor purposes, and those creatures got loose.

That's when you finally see the creatures themselves.  These tall, green tentacled monsters show up and you have to run or fight.  You encounter them several more times during your explorations, and several plot twists keep you from just running back to your ship and hightailing it out of there.  All told it's not as long as Resident Evil, and it does resort to backtracking to prolong the length of the game.  But for the time, it was revolutionary.  The graphics may look ancient now, but at the time it was some of the best I'd seen.  All in all, it was a brilliant game...

 
...except for the gameplay.  While I loved exploring the space station, fending off the creatures was annoying because the weapons were terrible.  There were a couple of different types of guns you could pick up, but they were really more like cattle prods.  Instead of firing any sort of projectiles or beams, just the tip of the gun lit up and became lethal.  Safety-wise, this actually makes sense not having weapons that could breach the hull.  But gameplay-wise, it was way too difficult killing monsters this way.  If you were close enough for your weapon to hurt them, they could hurt you as well.  Now if the game were more of a run-and-hide style game like Alien Isolation, this would still be fun.  But Project Firestart often put you in situations where you had to fight to survive, by putting monsters on both sides of you with no other ways out.  This issue is the only black mark on a game that was otherwise years ahead of its time.

Mail-Order Monsters (C64, 1985)

Buy a monster.  Customize him with bio-upgrades and weapons.  Take him to the arena to fight other monsters.  Use your winnings to upgrade your monster, or to buy more monsters.  There's been a few modern attempts at similar games, but none of them have had the charm of MOM.  It was so fun playing this game with my friends, each of us loading up our own monsters and making them fight.  I spent hours cheating by playing the two player mode by myself, winning battle after battle so I could earn enough money to build an entire menagerie of fully-powered beasts.  It was a wonderful experience...

...except for the gameplay.  While the build process was well-done and had decent graphics, the actual battle part was pretty dull.  Each player controlled a tiny solid-colored sprite, trying to get close enough to the enemy to hit the button for a melee attack, or trying to line them up for an easily-dodged ranged attack.  I know I shouldn't expect much from the C64, but there were plenty of other games that managed to make this kind of combat exciting.  I just wish the programmers had worked as hard on the fighting as they did the construction mode.

Autoduel (C64, 1985)

Based on the tabeltop RPG "Car Wars", Autoduel was an open-world vehicular combat game set in a Mad Max style future.  The freedom was incredible - you're just a guy with a car, what you do next is up to you.  Enter a demolition derby to earn more money.  Or take a courier job, braving the lawless streets to deliver packages to other cities.  Or go bounty hunting, living off rewards for the outlaws you defeat.  Use the money to improve your car, buy better cars, and equip them with the best weapons.  The game came with an instruction booklet as thick as the RPG itself, designed to look like a vehicle owner's manual.  I'm not sure I've ever seen so much stuff you can do in a C64 game.  It was an incredible sandbox game...

...except for the gameplay.  The cars moved too sluggishly, making it very difficult.  It was hard to practice enough to get better, because of the extraordinarily long loading times.  The rules were as harsh as an RPG - if you died, you had to make a new character.  So a typical game session might go like this:  Wait 10 minutes for the game to load.  Start a new character, spend several minutes making your first car.  Several more minutes getting your first courier job.  Leave town so you can drive to your courier destination.  Wait 5 more minutes for it to load the area between the towns.  Get attacked by outlaws.  Try to flee, because the starting cash isn't enough to buy weapons that don't suck.  Get killed because your car is slow and hard to control.  Realize you have to start the entire game over because of the harsh death rules.  Play a different game because this one is so frustrating.

WWE All-Stars (3DS, 2011)

But games that are almost perfect aren't limited to the C64.  More recently I owned "WWE Wrestling All-Stars" for the 3DS, and it was nearly incredible.  It had an impressive roster split between classic and modern wrestlers.  The classic wrestlers included all my favorites from my teen years, with multiple outfits to represent different years of their career.  We have Andre in his classic black on-strap leotard, but we also have him in his early years, with the long hair and the more traditional briefs.  There were multiple rings, a create-a-wrestler mode, and all the match types I've come to expect from wrestling games (singles, tag team, steel cage, etc).  In short, it is the perfect WWE game...

...except for the gameplay.  The matches just feel slow and tedious.  To be fair, I haven't had a lot of luck with wrestling games, even the ones that received great reviews.  So this is probably just me.  I haven't played a wrestling game I liked since the days of 2D sprites.  Something happened when they converted to polygons - they stopped being fun arcade button mashers and started becoming wrestling simulators.  Which is fine for a certain type of gamer, but I don't think I'm the target audience.

Super Smash Bros for the 3DS

Still reading this far?  Cool.  So anyway, the new Smash Bros 3DS game.  I'm really enjoying this game.  It has a lot going for it.  For one thing, it has a huge roster of fighters (51 once all are unlocked), with several alternate looks for each.  Some of those alternate looks are practically new characters.  For instance, instead of alternate colors, Bowser Jr's alts are the other 7 Koopalings.  A couple of the characters have male and female versions, Little Mac has both his NES look and his green wireframe arcade look, one of Peach's alts is Daisy, one of Fox's alts is Wolf, and so on.

The game has a ton of modes, and hundreds of unlockable things, so you never run out of things to do.  If all you feel like doing is random fights, you can just go to the highly-customizable Smash Mode.  But there's also Classic Mode where you fight a lot of different types of matches until you get to the boss.  Not to mention Smash Run, where you run around a level fighting enemies like a traditional platformer, collecting powerup icons, until it ends with a traditional Smash battle using the powerups you collected.  It even has a mode where you fight every fighter in the game, in the order their games were released.  With characters like Pac-Man and Mr Game & Watch, it's practically the history of video games in the palm of my hand.

The addition of Miis is particularly nice.  I always like Create-A-Fighter modes, so the ability to put myself into SSB is wonderful.  You start with any Mii in your collection, then choose three basic fighting styles - fists, sword, or gun.  Then you can choose from a few special moves, pick some stat-boosting icons to help you specialize your character, and pick an outfit and head accessories (more of which are unlockable).  It's not perfect but it's a really great feature.

All in all, I'd have to say it's the perfect Nintendo fighting game...

...except for - you guessed it - the gameplay.  Now to be fair, I enjoy this game's controls more than any other game mentioned in this blog.  It is highly polished, and everything I dislike about it is just personal taste.  I still think it deserves all the 9 star reviews it's getting.  Unlike the C64 examples, this game's controls were not a casualty of limited technology; this is exactly the game the programmers were intending to make.  However, I personally hate being forced to play 2D games with the circle pad.  I have a firm belief that 3D games work better with analog pads, and 2D games work better with d-pads.  Fighting games in particular should be mapped to d-pads because they require a lot of precise button-tapping, and often involve a lot of pounding that's harsh on the more delicate analog sticks.  And before you think I'm being paranoid, there have already been a lot of reports of people breaking their circle pads playing SSB.  I really hope these breakages cause Nintendo to release a patch that lets you use the d-pad.

I also have trouble keeping track of my character in the chaotic battles.  The game does attempt to make this easier for you: it has a couple of options for putting an outline around characters, and it puts "P1" above your head at all times... but it's still easy to lose track of where you are.  And while the game has a lot of different play modes, most of them aren't very good.  I'm glad they're there, but after trying each once, I generally found myself going back to the plain old Smash mode over and over.  Some of the minigames in particular are tedious - I've hated home run stadium since the last game.

But despite these shortcomings - most of which are really my shortcomings - it's a fantastic game. 

Alien: Isolation

I didn't like scary movies as a kid.  I was easily frightened, and didn't understand why people would want to feel that way for fun.  Whenever I heard about the movie "Alien", I was curious because I liked sci-fi, but I was too scared to want to see it.  I saw a doll of the creature on store shelves, and that alone was scary enough for me.  When Aliens came out in 1986, I let that pass me right by.  I remember thinking "Cool title", but that's about it. 

Then my grandmother died, and we inherited a box of her old books.  My Mom asked me to look through it to see if there was anything I wanted to read.  I found a copy of the novelization of Alien, read it, and fell in love.  I then went to the bookstore and picked up Aliens, and finished that just as quickly.  Next I rented both movies, and they immediately became my two favorite movies.  I picked up any other Alien merchandise I could find, which wasn't much at the time.

I bought games based on both movies for the Commodore 64.  The one based on Aliens was an excellent (for the time) collection of minigames, with cut scenes that take you through all the events of the movie.  Some of the minigames were better than others, but you could tell the programmers loved the movie, and really put their best effort into keeping it faithful to the source material.  It would be almost unplayable today, with the primitive graphics, but at the time it was the best movie-based game I'd ever played.

The "Alien" computer game is another story. Graphically, this game was extremely simple.  Your screen showed a map of the ship, with dots representing where different crew members were.  You could highlight specific crew members, and order them to move to other rooms, pick up items, and so on.  However, they didn't follow your orders right away, and would sometimes ignore you completely if you asked them to do something too frightening.  Somewhere on the ship the alien was popping in and out of air ducts, occasionally killing crew members.  Your job was to somehow kill it, keeping as many crew members alive as possible.  Killing the alien was no easy task, considering there were no real weapons on board.  Theoretically you could blow it out the airlock, though I never successfully managed to do that.

My preferred method was setting the ship to self destruct, then using the escape shuttle.  However, there were a lot of rules that kept you from doing this right away.  First off, it could only hold three crew members, and it wouldn't allow you to leave any crew members alive on the ship.  So you would have to wait until there were only three crew members left to use this method (there was also a mode that let you start out with three crew members).  Which leads to the next problem - the cat counted as a crew member.  So before you could blow the ship, you had to get the cat carrier, find the cat, catch it, and bring it with you.  Of course, chasing the cat all over she ship increased your chances of running into the alien.  And whenever you saw the alien, the screen would change to an animated picture of the monster while alarms go off.  The graphics weren't great, but the first time it happened it still made me jump.

The lack of action kept the game from being a hit with my friends, but I loved the psychological aspects of it.  Whenever you highlighted a crew member, you could hear their heartbeat, while their current emotional condition (stable, shaken, etc) was displayed on the screen.  If you kept them calm, they were more likely to follow your orders.  These emotional conditions were affected by factors such as whether they were currently alone in the room, if they were holding something that could be used as a weapon, their location (being in the air ducts made them particularly jumpy), and whether they had recently seen the alien.  Some of the crew members were more easily shaken than others.  Lambert was particularly unstable, and could be killed simply by putting her in a situation so scary it gave her a heart attack.  This could even be a useful strategy if you still have one too many crew members to use the escape ship.

So it wasn't a very pretty game, and it could be incredibly frustrating at times, but in my opinion it captured the spirit of the movie more than any action game ever could.  This was years before Resident Evil coined the term "Survival Horror", but Alien easily belongs in the genre.  I always wished the game could be remade with modern graphics and controls...

...And here comes Alien: Isolation, scheduled to be in stores October 7th.  I have high hopes for this game.  It takes place sometime between Alien and Aliens, with you controlling Ripley's daughter as a member of a crew investigating the disappearance of the original ship.  Predictably, they end up getting an alien on their ship, and the plot runs similar to the first movie from there.  But the big difference between this and the 50 or so other Alien-related games that have come out in the past couple of decades, is you're not blasting waves of aliens with a machine gun.  Instead, Isolation is a tension-filled game of hide and seek, similar in some ways to Clock Tower.  You have to look for different hiding places, from which you might see parts of the alien as it hopefully passes by.  You even have a button to hold your breath so it doesn't hear you.

And they've even announced some DLC that adds scenarios based on the first movie.

This sounds just like what I've hoped for since the C64 game.  I can't wait to try it out.  Please-don't-suck-please-don't-suck-please-don't-suck...

Injustice: Gods Among Us (and the Mortal Kombat Series)

Lately we've been playing Injustice: Gods Among Us.  But before we talk about that, let's go back a little.

I always had a love/hate relationship with the Mortal Kombat series.  I was a teenager when the first one came out, and at the time it was the coolest thing I'd ever seen.  Yes, the violence was attractive to my tasteless 18-year old mind, but that wasn't the biggest draw for me.  I loved the digitized actors, and some of the special moves (Scorpion's rope, Sub-Zero's freeze) were a lot more interesting than Street Fighter's punches and fireballs.  Unfortunately MK1 didn't translate very well to home systems.  I don't mean the censorship (which was annoying but didn't really make the game less fun), it's just that none of the home versions really got the controls quite right.

They made up for it with Mortal Kombat 2, which was uncensored and had better graphics, tighter controls, more characters, and lots of secrets to discover.  My fiancee KJ (now my wife) and I played that one for months.  Mortal Kombat 3 was a bit of a letdown.  No big graphical upgrade, and initially they took away some of the most popular characters.  These fighters returned in Ultimate MK3, which was nice, but it still wasn't as revolutionary as MK2 had been.  Eventually they released MK Trilogy for the home systems, and that was the pinnacle of the 2D series.  I've always preferred fighting games that have loads and loads of characters, and this was (at the time) the most I'd ever seen in a single game. 

The transition to 3D was rocky.  For me, Mortal Kombat 4 was basically a tech demo - like they were saying, "Here's the groundwork; eventually we'll be able to make a decent 3D MK game."  I didn't play much of Deadly Alliance or Deception.  Each one was better than the last, but at the time I just felt that I was "over" Mortal Kombat.

In 2006, I played Mortal Kombat Armageddon.  It was the best MK game up to that date, featuring nearly every character that had been in the series.  It was like the "MK Trilogy" of 3D MK games.  Like the previous games that I had skipped, it also had a decent single player mode that played like an adventure game.  I especially loved the Kreate-A-Fighter mode, and I wish more fighting games allowed you to build your own characters.  The only thing keeping it from being the definitive MK game was the Fatality system.  The designers tried to experiment this time, and instead of giving each fighter their own fatalities as usual, they had a weird sort of "create-your-own" fatality system where you linked together a series of brutal combos.  I never got the hang of it, and it's a dark mark on what was otherwise the height of the pre-reboot MK series.  I was certainly prepared for it to be the final MK game.

In 2008, they released Mortal Kombat Vs. DC Universe.  It was really fun for about an hour, but there just wasn't enough there to love.  It felt like the designers did just enough work to have a solid fighting game, then rushed it out the door.  I could see pulling it out again when friends are over, if I didn't already own some much better fighting games.  There is nothing hugely wrong with the game; it just goes through the motions and gets the job done.  If you see it for $10, there are worse ways you could spend the money.

In 2011, we picked up the Mortal Kombat reboot (aka MK9 or MK2011).  We bought it on a whim.  I hadn't been following the game's development, and I hadn't read any reviews of it.  KJ and I happened to see it on the shelf, and we had some extra money burning a hole in our pockets.  We were trying to decide between that and another game, and KJ was actually the one who said, "We like Mortal Kombat, let's get it."  And we played it for months.  It is so good, far better than anything the series has put out before.  The controls are tight.  My biggest complaint about the MK series was that it didn't control as easily as more serious fighters, but MK9's controls are so good that even Fatalities are a breeze to do.  It had a good-sized roster of characters, a lot of different modes and options, and a story mode that was actually interesting for a change.

Now let's be honest.  The Mortal Kombat series started as a gimmick.  First they wanted to see if they could make a fighter with digitized graphics.  Then they wanted to see how much gore they could get away with.  Later games in the series also tried to test how much skin they could show.  I recognize this, and while I have enjoyed these gimmicks in the past, I do recognize that they are gimmicks.  All these games I would enjoy until until I was out of shiny objects to find, then I'd look for another game.  So seriously, I never thought I would say this about a MK game.  But the truth is, MK9 is one of the best fighting games ever made.  If you haven't played it, and aren't put off by the violence and skimpy outfits, you can find the "Komplete Edition" (PS3, 360) for under $20 now.  It really is worth it.

And now we have Injustice: Gods Among Us.  Why did I preface my review of Injustice with a Mortal Kombat history lesson?  Well, for all intents and purposes, Injustice is the spiritual successor of MK9.  It was developed by the same set of programmers, and is very similar to MK9 in style.  The controls are a bit different (most noticably Injustice doesn't use a block button), but overall you can easily see the similarities.

So how does it measure up to its predecessor?  Well, overall I do think MK9 was a slightly better game.  It had a larger roster of fighters, and slightly more intuitive controls (in my opinion).  But truthfully, I'd have to be a more hardcore gamer to really care.

Injustice has 24 fighters (with four more coming soon as downloadable content).  The roster is split 50-50 heroes and villains, featuring most of DC's major characters.  The basic controls are simple, though some of the more complicated combos are almost impossible for me to pull off.  Granted, I'm playing on the 360, and I hate the 360's controller for fighting games.  Still, some of the most powerful moves are the easiest to perform.  You can throw background objects at your opponent by simply tapping the shoulder button.  Each character has an over-the-top Super Move which is done by pressing two shoulder buttons together.

These super moves are basically Injustice's alternative to MK's Fatalities (or MK9's X-Ray moves).  Unlike fatalities, they can be done during the match, after filling up your super meter.  It's hard to imagine anybody surviving these moves.  For example, Superman punches his opponent into space, flies after them, and punches them back to the ground.  It stretches believability a bit that people can keep fighting after getting hit by these powers, but that's nothing new for fighting games.  Seriously, how many people in real life could get hit by Ryu's fireball or Dhalsim's yoga flame and still continue the match?  Injustice just takes it a bit farther.

Also cool are the stage transitions.  Most stages have two fighting areas, and if you use the right move in the right spot, you will knock your opponent into the other part of the stage and continue the fight there.  The Mortal Kombat series has been doing this for a while, but this time the transitions are especially funny (and damaging).  If you're fighting on the roof and your opponent knocks you off, you don't just fall to the street level.  No, first you get knocked into the side of a nearby building, where a wrecking ball hits you, then you fall and land on some elevated train tracks.  The train hits you, knocking you to the street level, while the train also crashes to the ground in the background.  Again, these transitions challenge your suspension of disbelief, but they're very entertaining.

Injustice's story mode is very interesting.  Several former DC voice actors have returned, including George Newburn and Kevin Conroy.  The plot is similar to one of my favorite episodes of the Justice League animated series, but it plays out much darker.  I'm only a couple of chapters into it so far, but it already looks very compelling.  And in case you were wondering, the story mode does explain how a human like the Joker can stand up to Superman's punches.  (Update: I've now finished the story mode.  It's really good.)

Like MK9, Injustice is filled with tons of unlockable content.  Each character has an alternate outfit related to the story mode's plot.  You can unlock these outfits by spending cards you earn while playing.  There are also a lot of extra costumes that can be earned other random ways, such as by completing other game modes.  It also has some extra battle modes you can unlock, as well as the usual miscellany I probably won't bother unlocking, like concept art or music.

There's a mode called "STAR Labs" that works a lot like MK9's Challenge Tower.  You are given specific missions that sometimes involve fighting, but are just as likely to be something off-the-wall like defending the Earth from meteors.  One early mission has you controlling Catwoman's cat while avoiding museum security guards.  You even have a "meow" button.  These missions are a cool break from fighting, but a lot of them are frustratingly difficult for me.

Is it balanced?  Are the combos easy to pull off?  Is the online opponent-matching any good?  I don't know; I'm not a very hardcore gamer these days.  I will say that some of the one-button-press moves (like throwing background objects) are just as damaging as some of the moves that take more complicated button-pressing.  So lots of matches become races to see who can reach certain background objects first.  Also, some of the ranged moves (like Deathstroke's rifle) are cheap enough to be somewhat cheesy in the wrong hands.  But it's balanced enough that when KJ and I play, either one of us could win no matter who we pick.  And in the end, that's all I really care about.

The bottom line:  While I do think MK9 is technically a better game, Injustice has a lot of charm and comic geekiness that makes me like it better.  I highly recommend this game to anyone who likes fighting games and DC characters, but if you want to wait a year until a "complete" version comes out, I wouldn't blame you.

Nintendo 3DS

Still no big long post here, as I've been using up all my blogging energy for my RPG blog. 

Just wanted to mention that I have a 3DS now, so if anybody wants to add me to their friend list, here's my friend code: 1306-5310-8353

Remember you'll have to give me your code as well for it to work.  As long as we're posting friend codes, here's my Wii Code (not that I play the Wii much any more): 7045 1920 7172 8881

And my X-Box 360 handle: MattAndKJ

I'm really enjoying the 3DS.  So far I've mostly been playing Mario Kart 7, New SMB 2, and a bunch of classic NES/Gameboy games.

Super Hero Summer

Covering three:

The Avengers
I didn't bother blogging this one when it came out, because it was just too obvious.  I simply can not imagine a better super hero movie, unless Avengers 2 is just two hours of Black Widow making out with Pepper Potts. If you haven't seen the Avengers yet, you owe me $5 stupidity tax.  By the way, I've seen it with and without 3D, and it was beautiful both ways.  The 3D is great but not required, so use your own judgement there.

Amazing Spider-Man
This was fun, but I liked the other trilogy better.  And that's really the hardest part of sitting through Amazing Spider-Man - the fact that I'd seen most of it before.  Generally I don't mind remakes or reboots, in truth I think it's fun seeing how different people tackle the same story.  But in this case I wish they'd just summed up his origin story in the opening credits.  Instead, this movie actually spends more time on his origin story than the 2002 version.  We all know Spidey's origin, and while I appreciate the differences (the return of web shooters, intrigue involving his parents, Uncle Ben's accident playing out differently), they didn't need to draw it out so long.

Andrew Garfield does a decent enough job, but it really got on my nerves the way he always took so long to speak.  "How are you, Peter?"  "................................Fine."  They could have shaved 15 minutes off the movie's running time if they'd removed all the awkward conversational pauses.  You could tell a lot of the dialogue between Peter and Gwen was meant to be cutesy and clever, but it fell flat on my ears.  Maybe I'm just too old.

I loved the Lizard.  He looked great, and the fight scenes were a lot of fun, even if they did look a bit like video game cutscenes.  The part of the movie's climax involving cranes - you'll know it when you see it - was so cheesy that I can't decide whether I love it or hate it.  It was reminiscent of the "don't threaten New Yorkers" bridge scene in the 2002 movie, only much more over the top.

Overall I'd have to give it a thumbs up, but understand it really doesn't do much that wasn't done ten years ago.  I try not to judge movies based on other movies, but the bottom line is that if the earlier trilogy didn't exist, I would have been much more impressed by Amazing Spider-Man.

By the way, we saw it in 3D, which was fine, but they really didn't do much with it.  Save a couple of bucks and see it in 2D instead; you won't miss much IMO.

The Dark Knight Rises
It was really hard for me to get interested in seeing DKR.  Sure, Batman Begins was a great way to cast away old shames and restart the franchise.  And The Dark Knight was as good as a Batman movie could ever hope to be.  But none of the trailers for Dark Knight Rises really pulled me in.  After the flashy, colorful Avengers movie, I wasn't sure if I really wanted to see another gritty, realistic Batman.  

But I loved every minute of it.  And I do mean every minute, which kind of blows my mind.  The movie is nearly three hours long, and I'd heard that it lags in the middle, but I never felt bored.  There were a couple of subplots that could have been left out without affecting the movie's overall quality, but nothing that really bogged the movie down.

Bane was great.  I wasn't expecting much out of him, but he really captured the spirit of the comic book character.  But predictably, the character I liked most was Selina Kyle.  She was clever and funny...  yeah, there wasn't much there that we hadn't already seen from Black Widow, but I'd rather see it from Selina.

The movie seemed to pick bits of its plot out of several comic story arcs, such as No Man's Land, Son of the Demon, and of course Knightfall.   It's as if Christopher Nolan scoured the history of the Batman universe to find the bits that would be most believable.  In some ways it felt like a direct sequel to Batman Begins, with Dark Knight just being an interesting extra story thrown in the middle.  It ended perfectly, wrapping up all the right details and really capping off the trilogy well.

Awesome as it was, I am glad this is the last one.  It's a great trilogy, but it doesn't need more.  I hope the next Batman reboot is more on par with the 1989 movie.  The Nolanverse is awesome, but I'm ready for something a little more comic-booky again. Not silly like Batman & Robin, but just fanciful enough that it could exist in the same universe as the Justice League.  I'm tired of Marvel having all the fun.

By the way, DKR also shows the new teaser for Man of Steel.  I don't think I've ever seen a more pointless trailer full of random images.  I'll withhold judgement on the movie itself, as a lot of great movies have rotten early teasers.  But seriously, who thought this teaser was a good idea?

Random Sci-Fi Thoughts

I have often said, "There is a fundamental difference between a normal person and a sci-fi fan: a normal person actually likes sci-fi".  If I take my mom to see a Star Wars prequel or an odd-numbered Star Trek film, she'll come back saying, "That was a pretty fun space movie."  But if I take a true sci-fi fan - even if it's to a really good movie - for the next few hours I'll be subjected to diatribes about the technical mistakes, followed by rants about how modern science fiction isn't as good as the works of Isaac Asimov or Phillip K. Dick.

There's a reason people like this get ostracized.  It's not because they're smarter than everyone else; there's plenty of popular smart people.  It's because it's just not fun hanging around people who hate everything.  It's a simple rule; when even the nerds want to kick you in the nuts, the problem is you. 

A friend posted this webcomic declaring Star Wars to be fantasy, not sci-fi.  For the most part, I agree. However, he's never going to be able to hold a job at a video store.  To quote his accompanying blog:

Hugo Gernsback, considered by many to be the father of sci-fi (and whose name you can see in, you know, the HUGO Awards) established the criteria a work had to meet to be considered science fiction:

1) The author must know science.
2) The author must be able to play with breakthrough theories and delve into how they would affect society.

So yeah,  I can totally agree there, but it's just a semantic argument.  For one thing, Gernsback actually pushed for the cumbersome term "scientifiction", so clearly he understood science more than marketing.  My personal take?  There's "Science Fiction" and there's "Sci-Fi".  Science fiction" refers to stories that actually speculate about unknown aspects of science, attempt to predict science related things (the future of technology, the biology of alien species, etc), and in general are written by people who know what they are talking about.  Sci-fi refers to stories that happen to take place in space and/or in the future, or deal with futuristic elements like aliens or robots, but that concentrate more on entertaining you than getting their facts right.

Or for a more cynical take:  If they're on a spaceship and it bores you, it's science fiction.  If they're on a spaceship and stuff blows up, it's sci-fi.

There's plenty of room for overlap there.  You can easily be more than one thing.  Star Trek is both science fiction and sci-fi, depending on the episode or the writer.  Star Wars is both fantasy and sci-fi, but rarely really touches science fiction.  Alien is both sci-fi and horror. Aliens is both sci-fi and action. Alien 3 is both sci-fi and garbage.

What bugs me is when people try to shy away from the "sci-fi" stigma. You know, the ones who say, "Don't call my book sci-fi!  Sure, it's set in space and has robots, but it's a love story, dang it!"  Twenty years ago, sure, but today?  Right now there is not a single intelligent person on Earth who doesn't love sci-fi.  Be proud of your work!  Such a tiny percentage of people actually manage to get anything published.  No matter how hard you work, becoming a well-known author or director is still like winning the lottery.  You just sound whiny when your work doesn't get reviewed and categorized exactly the way you wanted.

I do think it's weird that the Sci-Fi channel didn't seem to mind the stigma back when it was considered nerdy, but then changed their name to SyFy after sci-fi became mainstream.  That might not be why they actually changed it, but I still think it's a funny observation.

So anyway, you can rationalize all you want about how Star Wars is technically not science fiction, and I probably won't disagree with your points. But you have to admit when you're browsing Netflix and want to watch Star Wars, you're going to head for the sci-fi section.

3D or Not 3D?

*sigh*  I seem to find myself writing the same blog over and over.  I've already stood up for remakes and sequels, so I think my "live and let live" attitude here is going to be pretty obvious.  Anyway...

A few weeks ago the news broke that Jurassic Park was going to get a 3D re-release.  My brother and my cousin both immediately responded with the standard "OMG-Why?-Has-Hollywood-run-out-of-ideas-and-do-they-only-care-about-money" knee jerk reactions.  These are both very intelligent people and I usually respect their opinions, but come on guys.  Different people go to the movies for different reasons.  Heck, the same person goes to different movies for different reasons.  Sometimes you want to appreciate the film for the piece of art it is.  Other times you want to go on a roller coaster ride. 

Now my brother lives in the magical land of Xanth, where he's never more than twenty minutes from the nearest roller coaster.  He doesn't appreciate what it's like for those of us who no longer have access to a theme park.  If I want to ride a roller coaster, I have two choices.  I can drive a few hours, or I can see a 3D movie at my local IMAX.  (...which is, coincidentally, located right in the vicinity of where a few roller coasters used to be, until they paved paradise and put up a shopping mall.  But I'm not bitter... jerks.)

First off, you didn't see this coming?  Converting old movies to 3D is a trend right now.  You're going to see a lot more before it's over.  Of course they're going to start by looking at a lot of the more popular movies with big special effects.  Plus, 3D televisions are starting to get cheaper and more popular, so people are going to want a lot more 3D blu-rays for their collection, and if you're going to upconvert an old movie anyway, why not give it another run on the big screen?

They're not making you see them.  Steven Spielberg is not going to throw handcuffs on you and drag you to the theater.  Nor is George Lucas going to break into your house and convert all your Star Wars DVDs to 3D. Are you just complaining because Spielberg and Lucas are wasting time that could be spent doing other things?  Maybe... but I doubt it.  These guys have a lot of resources, and can afford to have teams working on several projects at once. 

Or are you just mad because they're going to put something in the theater you don't like?  Look, I appreciate the whole avant-garde film student schtick, but not the whole "everything sucks except for the stuff I find artsy" thing.  It's old.  The internet is full of jaded critics who think it makes them look cooler if they hate everything.  It has been played out.  It is time for people to start gushing about the stuff they like again, and ignore the stuff they hate.  It's a simple fact - you are not the entertainment industry's only target audience.  Sometimes people will release movies that aren't meant for you.  Sometimes music is released that isn't in a genre you like.  If something is released that isn't your style, don't say, "That looks awful."  Just say, "That's not for me, but someone else will probably like it."  It's what mature people do; come join us over at the grownups table.

I think people are confused by the word "converted".  It's true, if you convert your canoe into a bathtub, you'll have a hard time getting it back again.  But movies don't work that way.  Converting a 2D movie into a 3D movie does not mean that the 2D version no longer exists.  They're not "changing" your movie; they're releasing an additional version, one which you are free to ignore.

Now  I will agree, upconverted 3D isn't great yet.  Not long ago we saw Star Wars Episode I in 3D, and it really was a lukewarm experience at best.  Some scenes were better than others, but even the best scenes were like watching it through a Viewmaster.  Yes, people standing in the foreground looked closer to you than the stuff in the background, but really it was just a gimmick that didn't add anything to the movie.

More recently, I saw Wrath of the Titans in 3D.  Now that was a cool experience.  It was filmed in 3D, and it showed; I swear I had more fun at that movie than at any theme park ride I can remember.  Wrath is the kind of movie 3D was made for, and I wouldn't want to see it any other way.  It makes the 3D in Star Wars look pathetic. So yes, I see how upconversion seems like a waste of time when you could be filming new 3D movies.

But I don't begrudge George Lucas for making 3D Star Wars conversions.  Frankly, I'm just glad they're doing them in numerical order - maybe by the time they get to the good ones, they'll have perfected the process.  And that's the point, isn't it?  Technology improves when we use it.  If we just sit on this whole "upconverting" thing, it will never get any better.  But I think it would be really cool if a few decades from now, we could have glasses-free Star Wars movies in 3D that blows Wrath of the Titans away.  But we'll never get there if we don't practice now.

For now, I'll probably skip most 3D upconversions.  I'm just not into it.  It's enough for me to know that the technology is improving, and eventually might yield something worth seeing.

Anyway, the bottom line is the same as it was for the other blogs: If you don't like it, don't go see it.  But please stop whining about it; it's extremely childish, and you're ruining the fun for those who do enjoy seeing them.