So I realize March is almost over, and this is very late. Oh, well. In Spring movie preview I generally cover films releasing in March, April and May. Well nothing good really came out this month so far anyways. As usual I have three anticipation levels for the new releases on the schedule: see it in theaters, wait for netflix and never see this movie, ever, even if threatened with physical, mental and/or emotional harm. And don't forget option four (the Wife is making me see it).
The Hunger Games, March 23
I've been keeping myself in the dark on this one. The Wife just read the books and has been busting at the seams to tell me about them, which makes my info embargo all the more worth while. I get the basic idea from the trailers and that's all I care to go on. It looks interesting enough for me to recommend putting down some cash for tickets at the theater. We will have the full review next Monday, full of the Wife's fangirl raving, in case you were wondering.
Wrath of the Titans, March 30
Sadly this movie will be terrible. It sure looks pretty. Every time I see the trailer I want to see it and I want it to be good. I know it won't be. It is further tarnished by it shameless flaunting of 3D effects. Seriously, is the 3D fade still ongoing? Thanks a lot Avatar, or should I call you Pocahontas/Smurf/Fern Gully on crack rip off? I'll wait until it's on Netflix. Check that, I'll wait till Netflix streaming (never).
Titanic 3D, April 4
Ha!
American Reunion, April 6
Another one? Unfortunately for me, The Wife's birthday is in April. With a choice between this and Titanic 3D, I'll choose secret option three (death).
The Raven, April 27
Hey, I like John Cusack as much as the next guy, but this looks awful. They are turning Edgar Allen Poe into the hero of a murder mystery? Here is how that would really go down, Detective: "Hey Edgar, you want to help us solve this murder?" Edgar: "No, I'm just going to have a few more drinks and then go lay down in the ditch. Thanks though!" Ugh.
The Avengers, May 4
This could be so good it smashes out our ear drums, gives us cataracts and removes our ability to enjoy any form of entertainment less awesome that it, or so bad it smashes out our ear drums, gives us cataracts and removes our ability to enjoy any form of entertainment because we have lost our souls. Either way I'll be first in line at the theater wearing my Captain America shirt.
Battleship, May 18
Yep, it's a board game and now a movie. Only a movie with 100% more aliens and explosions and super manly men doing awesome manly stuff on ships. Seamen, if you will. What's next completely-out-of-ideas Hollywood? Risk, Chess, Checkers, Uno, Monopoly, Key to the Kingdom? Okay, that last one I'd go see. In short, I'll eat my new Bear Grylls Ultimate Survival knife before seeing this movie, and it's a big knife.
Men In Black 3, May 25
The first one was awesome,
the second one was not,
the third one is unnecessary,
so see it I will not.
Sad Face.
Monday, March 19, 2012
Thursday, March 15, 2012
Lazy Gamer?
Here is a lovingly crafted guest blog from our good friend Alex...
Alex: So the Hobo and I were talking (texting actually, even though I hate it) about video games, a perpetual topic of discussion, when the subject of video game difficulty came up. Here’s the string of texts (somewhat cleaned up, due to autocorrection’s unique brand of “help”) that lead to the rant that will be following:
Alex: I still didn’t hit level 60 by the end though. (In reference to Mass Effect 3)
Hobo: Lol, as if the level really matters anyways.
Alex: True. Leveling is pointless when the game levels with you. . .
Hobo: All you get are skill unlocks, and starting at level 25 gives you a ton of points to spend.
Alex: And by the end you have WAAAAY more than you’ll need.
Hobo: Whatever happened to games with actually difficulty?
Alex: They have those. They’re Japanese.
Hobo: Haha true. So what happened here in the USA to make us so soft?
Alex: Laziness.
Now I really hate the Western versus Japanese video games arguments. I really think it does a lot to further concepts of “they are different from us.” This is the same kind of thinking that leads us towards xenophobia and the scary parts of nationalism, when we should realize that we’re all humans and are more similar than different. That said, I do realize there are some differences in the overall aspects of games.
People say the Japanese prefer grinding (doing the same things again and again to level up or achieve some progress) in their games. What the heck is with the millions of World of Warcraft players then? That game is one gigantic grind! However, there are plenty MORE Japanese games that require some level of preparedness and planning to get through when compared to Western games, just as there are far more Western games about just quickly moving through the experience. It’s up to individual gamers to pick their style of play, neither is inherently better than the other. Monetarily it makes more sense to buy a game that you’ll get more hours out of, but I have known people to complain when a game takes too long.
Here is where my distaste for Western RPGs comes in. I can’t STAND when games scale alongside the player‘s level. Two recent examples to this are the aforementioned Mass Effect 3 and last year’s Elder Scrolls: Skyrim. By their very nature they render leveling useless and dilute the meaning of it. Leveling up should mean getting stronger, but are you actually getting stronger if the enemies are constantly matching you? Relatively speaking (I must stress the “relative“ part of this equation), no you are not stronger.
Part of the joy of leveling is to make use of that boost, to feel stronger than the enemies you’ve fought before. What sense does it make when that dime a dozen Banshee takes as much effort for Shepard (the galaxy’s supposedly best soldier) to kill when he’s level 54 versus level 30? None. Now here’s where that laziness comes in. Having the game auto-scale means you never have to judge where the player is at in that part of the story and craft encounters that are suitable to that level. This also means the player will never have a challenge, by crafting a scenario where the enemies are sufficiently higher level than the player. Never having a challenge also negates the necessity to do sidequests, as there is no need to be a higher level since you won’t actually gain an advantage.
I completed two games recently, and I think they’re a perfect representation of this concept of scale versus true leveling. The first was Mass Effect 3 (I know I keep using it as an example, it’s freshest in my mind). The two most frequent causes of death for my characters in ME3 were terrible controls (due mostly to their awful version of a cover mechanic) and my Xbox 360 freezing. That was it. The second game I finished recently was Shin Megami Tensei: Devil Survivor 2. Main cause of death? Not being prepared. Leveling up, choosing the right skill compliments, and getting better demons all factor into the game’s difficulty. You can take your time and over prepare to make it easier, or you can be curb stomped because you neglected something. Your effort has direct input on the difficulty, creating a genuine challenge. There are even optional fights that are too powerful for that point in the game, all to add extra challenge.
Ultimately, you should just play whatever makes you happy. Video games originated as a source of enjoyment, and they should always have some games that use that as their focal point. As long as you’re having fun, nobody should take that away from you--certainly not my opinions. The one thing I do worry about is what George Carlin referred to as “the pussification of America.” The idea that everyone is equal and everyone gets a trophy, even if they half-assed it. In reality there are difficult moments to life. Not everybody wins. In fact, there are far more losers than winners. It’s something you have to learn eventually. I prefer challenge to my games. I feel far more accomplished for beating Devil Survivor 2 than Mass Effect 3. If that challenge ever leaves the industry, that’ll be the day I stop buying games.
Alex: So the Hobo and I were talking (texting actually, even though I hate it) about video games, a perpetual topic of discussion, when the subject of video game difficulty came up. Here’s the string of texts (somewhat cleaned up, due to autocorrection’s unique brand of “help”) that lead to the rant that will be following:
Alex: I still didn’t hit level 60 by the end though. (In reference to Mass Effect 3)
Hobo: Lol, as if the level really matters anyways.
Alex: True. Leveling is pointless when the game levels with you. . .
Hobo: All you get are skill unlocks, and starting at level 25 gives you a ton of points to spend.
Alex: And by the end you have WAAAAY more than you’ll need.
Hobo: Whatever happened to games with actually difficulty?
Alex: They have those. They’re Japanese.
Hobo: Haha true. So what happened here in the USA to make us so soft?
Alex: Laziness.
Now I really hate the Western versus Japanese video games arguments. I really think it does a lot to further concepts of “they are different from us.” This is the same kind of thinking that leads us towards xenophobia and the scary parts of nationalism, when we should realize that we’re all humans and are more similar than different. That said, I do realize there are some differences in the overall aspects of games.
People say the Japanese prefer grinding (doing the same things again and again to level up or achieve some progress) in their games. What the heck is with the millions of World of Warcraft players then? That game is one gigantic grind! However, there are plenty MORE Japanese games that require some level of preparedness and planning to get through when compared to Western games, just as there are far more Western games about just quickly moving through the experience. It’s up to individual gamers to pick their style of play, neither is inherently better than the other. Monetarily it makes more sense to buy a game that you’ll get more hours out of, but I have known people to complain when a game takes too long.
Here is where my distaste for Western RPGs comes in. I can’t STAND when games scale alongside the player‘s level. Two recent examples to this are the aforementioned Mass Effect 3 and last year’s Elder Scrolls: Skyrim. By their very nature they render leveling useless and dilute the meaning of it. Leveling up should mean getting stronger, but are you actually getting stronger if the enemies are constantly matching you? Relatively speaking (I must stress the “relative“ part of this equation), no you are not stronger.
Part of the joy of leveling is to make use of that boost, to feel stronger than the enemies you’ve fought before. What sense does it make when that dime a dozen Banshee takes as much effort for Shepard (the galaxy’s supposedly best soldier) to kill when he’s level 54 versus level 30? None. Now here’s where that laziness comes in. Having the game auto-scale means you never have to judge where the player is at in that part of the story and craft encounters that are suitable to that level. This also means the player will never have a challenge, by crafting a scenario where the enemies are sufficiently higher level than the player. Never having a challenge also negates the necessity to do sidequests, as there is no need to be a higher level since you won’t actually gain an advantage.
I completed two games recently, and I think they’re a perfect representation of this concept of scale versus true leveling. The first was Mass Effect 3 (I know I keep using it as an example, it’s freshest in my mind). The two most frequent causes of death for my characters in ME3 were terrible controls (due mostly to their awful version of a cover mechanic) and my Xbox 360 freezing. That was it. The second game I finished recently was Shin Megami Tensei: Devil Survivor 2. Main cause of death? Not being prepared. Leveling up, choosing the right skill compliments, and getting better demons all factor into the game’s difficulty. You can take your time and over prepare to make it easier, or you can be curb stomped because you neglected something. Your effort has direct input on the difficulty, creating a genuine challenge. There are even optional fights that are too powerful for that point in the game, all to add extra challenge.
Ultimately, you should just play whatever makes you happy. Video games originated as a source of enjoyment, and they should always have some games that use that as their focal point. As long as you’re having fun, nobody should take that away from you--certainly not my opinions. The one thing I do worry about is what George Carlin referred to as “the pussification of America.” The idea that everyone is equal and everyone gets a trophy, even if they half-assed it. In reality there are difficult moments to life. Not everybody wins. In fact, there are far more losers than winners. It’s something you have to learn eventually. I prefer challenge to my games. I feel far more accomplished for beating Devil Survivor 2 than Mass Effect 3. If that challenge ever leaves the industry, that’ll be the day I stop buying games.
Monday, March 12, 2012
Review: John Carter
John Carter is actually based on the 1917 book, A Princess of Mars. I’ve only read a few pages of it, so I can’t really say how well John Carter holds up to the book. I would like to eventually finish the book, but that’s another topic entirely. As for the movie itself, at times I couldn’t tell what I was watching. Was it a movie more for little boys who live for action, was it a comedy with a weird space-like twist, or was it another typical action thriller with good vs. evil. Other than the various tones and at times choppy plot, I will say I was pretty entertained by John Carter. It was a nice way to spend a Friday evening. Some buttery popcorn, TIM RIGGINS and very pretty action scenes = an entertained, happy me. However, as I said, the plot was quite choppy. For a movie that was really marketed to the younger boy age range, I have a hard time believing that that particular audience was able to grasp what exactly was going on at times. Nonetheless, the little boys in our theatre all seemed to enjoy themselves and laughed at all the cheesy jokes. Ok ok ok, so I laughed at the cheesy jokes too. Then again, I sometimes find Jar Jar Binks funny…so yeah I can laugh at almost ANYTHING!
The story begins in the post-Civil War era, which is not conveyed in the film’s previews at all. I already knew this, however, from the little bit of A Princess of Mars that I had read prior to seeing John Carter. We aren’t in this time period for long, as John Carter is soon magically transported to another place, which is actually another planet, MARS! Funny antics ensue with Carter not being used to the atmosphere on Mars. Then of course he meets a group of alien type people and more hijinks ensue. We later find the true “bad guys,” who apparently lurk on earth as well and have spent all their time plotting groups against each other. Our ever so savvy John Carter of course figures this out, but not before falling in love with the precious princess, who wants his help in saving her home. If I explain more I will essentially give away this choppy plot, so my spoilers will stop here.
Acting wise, I’d say Kitsch did a decent job. I still see him as Tim Riggins, but he was able to portray John Carter and make it seem like a separate character, unlike the last half of the wolverine movie where Gambit basically morphed into Tim Riggins! We didn’t get enough of Bryan Cranston, best known for his role on Breaking Bad. The other acting was ok, not great, but not horrible either. I know John Carter did poor at the box office, and I blame that on bad marketing. This movie was not promoted well at all. As I mentioned previously, John Carter seems to have a problem with finding a target audience.
Overall I enjoyed this movie, but wouldn’t say it was great. I’d recommend you wait and Netflix this one, unless you are a huge fan of the book.
Hobo Dan: Hey, this movie was really pretty. For the first time in forever a movie successfully mixed real world backdrops with amazingly realistic CGI. The Aliens looked real. Everything looked real. I often cry because movies these days have shunned any real world sets for green screens. John Carter mixes this in a great way. If you don’t like the film itself, you can surly enjoy what it has accomplished technically. The story was everywhere and at times tough to follow. The acting was okay, although no one really stood out. I agree with The Wife on most of what she said. Wait on seeing it the theater unless you liked the books or if you really like seeing graphical stunners on the big screen. Mars Forever!
Thursday, March 8, 2012
Spoiled
I am the generation of no surprises. I cannot remember ever NOT knowing that Darth Vader was Luke's father. I am the generation of spoilers. I already knew Bruce Willis was dead and that Tyler Durden wasn't real. I know they are making a new Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles movie, and before it comes out I'll know its plot. When I go the the theater, I've already seen all the previews. You could suggest I simply ignore the media. Stop reading the spoilers and watching the trailers. I may as well cancel my Internet connection too.
So you can imagine my dismay when the last few episodes of a certain Zombie centric television show I enjoy was spoiled for me. Anger. Even as I’m sitting there listening as the spoilers roll forth, I think “Why am I doing this?” I’m trying to come to terms with it. I am totally to blame. One: I read the spoilers. Two: by reading the spoilers I supply a viewing audience, which in turn fuels more spoilers. Three: I watch the show/movie anyways. Sure there is plenty of blame to go around. How bad is security in Hollywood these days? You can’t go anywhere interesting on the Internet without running into back lot camera pics or leaked screen plays. But I still have to click the link. That step is within my control. Why can’t I resist?
I sit on this blog and hypocritically whine and complain about the lack of new material in movies these days. Then what do I do? I go online and consume every little bit of information about movies I can. And when the rare film comes out I’ve never heard (John Carter) I research until it is old news. It’s an addiction. I'm not alone. There are plenty of people just like me. But why? Anyone?
So you can imagine my dismay when the last few episodes of a certain Zombie centric television show I enjoy was spoiled for me. Anger. Even as I’m sitting there listening as the spoilers roll forth, I think “Why am I doing this?” I’m trying to come to terms with it. I am totally to blame. One: I read the spoilers. Two: by reading the spoilers I supply a viewing audience, which in turn fuels more spoilers. Three: I watch the show/movie anyways. Sure there is plenty of blame to go around. How bad is security in Hollywood these days? You can’t go anywhere interesting on the Internet without running into back lot camera pics or leaked screen plays. But I still have to click the link. That step is within my control. Why can’t I resist?
I sit on this blog and hypocritically whine and complain about the lack of new material in movies these days. Then what do I do? I go online and consume every little bit of information about movies I can. And when the rare film comes out I’ve never heard (John Carter) I research until it is old news. It’s an addiction. I'm not alone. There are plenty of people just like me. But why? Anyone?
Thursday, February 9, 2012
Moneyball
The Wife and I watched Moneyball this past weekend in an attempt to see as many of the best picture nominees as possible before the Oscars. A fantastic movie in my opinion, but I’m not here to review it. I’m here to talk about baseball. Every time I see a great baseball movie it reminds me that, deep down, I actually like that sport. I then lament for a few days until realizing that I am a Reds fan and The Wife is a Pirates fan, so between us, our teams have one playoff appearance in the last sixteen years (2010 Reds, Swept in LDS). I then proceed to hate on the sport for a few days. I growl and complain about its over paid athletes and long season. I rip the league for allowing the rich teams to prosper and the poor teams to die. And fat pitchers, what’s up with that? Then I just forget about it; baseball. I can’t remember the last time I watched a full game. Even in 2010 when the Reds made it to the playoffs for the first time in fifteen years, I just shrugged it off. So why do I love baseball movies, but not baseball?
I grew up on baseball movies like Angels in the Outfield, Little Big League and the Sandlot. I also remember seeing Major League at a young age (probably too young). So what do these movies have in common? Underdogs. In every case they are about teams overcoming to achieve. I think this is at the very core of why I love baseball movies. The movies give hope that anything is possible. You know, angels coming down from heaven to help you win, eleven year olds going pro and Charlie Sheen wearing glasses so he can pitch without killing people; winning. Everyone loves a good underdog story and that’s what you get from baseball movies. Moneyball fits right into this mold with one notable difference; it is true. Moneyball made me love and hate baseball all over again. It reminded me just why the sport is great, underdogs and streaks and the history of them game, which is rivaled by no other sport. It also reminded me that the game is about the money. Spoilers follow. Despite the efforts of the characters in the movie, they didn’t win it all. The movie tries to be hopeful by suggesting that the Red Sox won a few years later using the Moneyball principles, but the fact remains that Boston is one of the rich teams.
Call me a fair weather fan all you want. My answer is that I am a devoted Browns fan; I think that pretty much kills the fair weather idea. Maybe I just don’t like baseball. I’ve never really played it (organized). But I think it’s my deep feeling that may team and in turn many teams have no real chance to win. The underdogs have no chance. They have been bled out. Of the past twenty World Series winners, only two have been out of the top twenty richest teams (Toronto and Florida). Half of those wins come from teams ranked in the top ten richest teams (Yankees, Red Sox, Phillies, Giants and Angels). Seven of the wins come from the top two teams (Yankees and Red Sox). The teams at the bottom just cannot compete with this. Sure every now and then a middle of the road team may do well and even win it all; but those are rare and become even more so. I think Moneyball gets it right and wrong. There is no romance in baseball, until there is, but even then, it’s all about the money.
I grew up on baseball movies like Angels in the Outfield, Little Big League and the Sandlot. I also remember seeing Major League at a young age (probably too young). So what do these movies have in common? Underdogs. In every case they are about teams overcoming to achieve. I think this is at the very core of why I love baseball movies. The movies give hope that anything is possible. You know, angels coming down from heaven to help you win, eleven year olds going pro and Charlie Sheen wearing glasses so he can pitch without killing people; winning. Everyone loves a good underdog story and that’s what you get from baseball movies. Moneyball fits right into this mold with one notable difference; it is true. Moneyball made me love and hate baseball all over again. It reminded me just why the sport is great, underdogs and streaks and the history of them game, which is rivaled by no other sport. It also reminded me that the game is about the money. Spoilers follow. Despite the efforts of the characters in the movie, they didn’t win it all. The movie tries to be hopeful by suggesting that the Red Sox won a few years later using the Moneyball principles, but the fact remains that Boston is one of the rich teams.
Call me a fair weather fan all you want. My answer is that I am a devoted Browns fan; I think that pretty much kills the fair weather idea. Maybe I just don’t like baseball. I’ve never really played it (organized). But I think it’s my deep feeling that may team and in turn many teams have no real chance to win. The underdogs have no chance. They have been bled out. Of the past twenty World Series winners, only two have been out of the top twenty richest teams (Toronto and Florida). Half of those wins come from teams ranked in the top ten richest teams (Yankees, Red Sox, Phillies, Giants and Angels). Seven of the wins come from the top two teams (Yankees and Red Sox). The teams at the bottom just cannot compete with this. Sure every now and then a middle of the road team may do well and even win it all; but those are rare and become even more so. I think Moneyball gets it right and wrong. There is no romance in baseball, until there is, but even then, it’s all about the money.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)