Them's Fightin' Nerds! at 5:29 PM

On Podcast Numero Uno I tackle the issue of the day: AVGN, Hero, or Menace?

I like to hear from my fans, which is what you'll be doing if you listen to this because it is hot as hogs in here.

For the full, sexist review of Street Fighter: The Legend of Chun Li, go he-arr.

How do you Batman vs Superman? I show you! at 5:26 AM

Superheroes be like

There are characters and concepts out there, that are difficult to adapt, especially into a mainstream movie. Works that are too long, too morally complex, or too visually advanced for any old  person to present on screen.

Works that, once adapted, are always controversial.

Batman and Superman are the opposite of that.

Batman and Superman are the Easy Mode of works to adapt. Really, the narrative difficult parts have already been taken care of for you. Literally everyone and their grandma knows this characters, and they've been fleshed for over 75 years, on just about every medium imaginable, including streams of films.

"If anything, Superman Returns was not dark and meandering and melancholy ENOUGH."

But, according to certain spoiler laden reviews, somehow I have to explain to Zack Snyder and WB how to bring together Batman and Superman. Spoilers follow.

In a way, it's not so surprising that the studio that couldn't get Green Lantern, Jonah Hex, and Hellblazer, doesn't understand how the whole Batman x Superman thing should work. They only have like decades of comics, and the Bruce Timm animated movie, and Batman/Superman Public Enemies the animation. All works that cultivated the very idea of these characters butting heads. I guess  they didn't see that. They did see Death of Superman and The Dark Knight Returns, which, which are not really stories that make sense to mix with each other. It's X3 all over again. Mutant Cure and Phoenix each could be their own SERIES OF MOVIES, you don't put both together!


Anyway, I'm not reviewing the movie. I haven't seen it. But from the information I have, in this one Batman is angry and kills people and Superman...probably doesn't anymore, a lot. Batman is angry because of what happened in Metropolis(which, in-universe is kind of dickish because while Superman  might have failed to save a lot of people in Metropolis, he did save everyone ELSE in the world from turning into mountains of skulls. So...perspective) and because of that and the manipulations of Lex Luthor, that's what causes the titular boxing match.

In the end, upon being informed  that Superman's mom is called Martha, alike his own Mom, Batman gives up trying to straight up kill Superman, and they and Wonder Woman team up to fight Doomsday, the non-flipper having , revived and remonstered Zod, which kills Superman. Of course he kills Superman, why else would you have that sack of rocky shit if you wern't going to do the whole Death of Superman Tango. Of course, at this point we aren't killing Superman, American Icon for years, beloved by all, the world's greatest Superhero, but Superman, Divisive figure that some call FALSE GOD, and who had to attend senate hearings about his behavior. Even Superman Returns earned  it's "Superman is DEAD" moments.

Hey, as long as we're adapting the less good parts of the DCU...

Ok, director of Watchmen and 300: Here's how this usually goes down.

Batman and Superman have completely different methods of achieving the same thing, as well as entirely different viewpoints of things. Batman is generally more distrusting and cynical, because his entire thing is based on having watched his parents gunned down before him. Also, since he doesn't have Superpowers, he can't just pick up people and throw them in jail.

Superman, though, is basically a humble guy even though he could compress your cranium into diamonds. He is more of an optimist, and his approach to a situation that Batman might approach with Karate tends to be less like that.


So if these two haven't met, there'll be an obvious rift on account of the methodology. If they've already met, there will be some overlying issue that will be big enough to have characters be torn apart.

They'll fight, but not out of spite, for someone must stand up for what's right. But, naturally at some point they'll figure that they both want the same thing: justice, and so they'll squash the beef and make up. Uh, that sounded a little....


ANYWAY, you see, that's usually how it goes when you don't want to assassinate one or the other. If you want to make Superman look like an Super Jerk, you play to the negative perceptions some people have about him: That he's a dullard, boring, hypocrite, status quo loving freak. If you want to make Batman be in the wrong, have him just spy on  everyone and be an paranoid douche.

However, for all the half a decade plans of sequels you got lined up, you forgot to plan the most basic shit: How are Batman and Superman different.

For all the poop pants serious face talks of DESHTINY in Man of Steel, by the end you don't really get a sense of that this is THE Superman. You know, The "Great Icon of Hope" the film kept pushing. Even now in this film, there is allegedly not a sense of that. We never really got back from Pa' Kent if oh so special Clark Kent should leave a bus of schoolchildren to drown. In fact, in Man of Steel, when he kills Zod and he's all broken up about it, you can almost hear Kevin Costner going "you see, Clark, saving the planet...awful business, that."

I'm starting to think WB hired Sandy Corolla as a way to keep him out of Marvel's hands...

So to contrast Morally Ambiguous Superman we have...Morally Ambiguous Batman. EVEN MORE-ERERER morally ambiguous than when he exploded an entire factory or when he lied about and covered the District Attorney's death because Gotham's little heart just couldn't handle the idea that he went on a killing spree, if you can believe it.


So now, rather than Navy Blue, Boy Scout Supes fighting Gray and Black , Scowling Batman facing each other before coming to an understanding based on a new found sense of trust and respect over what good they see in the other we have Blue-Black, Pensive Superman Fighting Rock Gray and Black Batman fighting each other over stupid shit, and coming together over stupid shit long enough to fight Doomsday.

Really, it's all in the visuals.

To clarify, I have not seen the film. I'm sure IF I watch it, it won't be the worst thing I've done. I'm not a snob. I thought MoS was just kind of okay. But just from knowing these plot elements, I am just boggled. I am boggled that in a year when Fox got Deadpool right...FOX...DEADPOOL...RIGHT...that Warner kind of dropped the ball on  pretty much THE only Superheroes they bought DC for. I mean, not financially, the movie's doing good I hear. But, again, it's 2016, and Marvel made a good movie about fucking Antman. You don't get points for showing up, WB and DC.

The Case for Old Lara Croft at 7:57 AM

I'm trying to imagine 15 year old me seeing THIS as Lara Croft.

So, that new Tomb Raider sure is probably something, huh? I mean, I can't play it because I'm not made out of Next Gen Consoles, but I guess seeing it have the success it has had means that 2013's Lara Croft is here to stay. Wait, let me check that. Oh, wait, aparently the new game bombed.

 Like Batman Begins, the game took an earnest  look at the what had and hand;t been done with the character and tried to do some king of "realistic" self-serious character study on that lady that once used to shoot dinosaurs out of her infinite ammo twin pistols.

No offense meant by what I'm going to say now. I don't think Nu TR is, pardon the stupid terms, an SJWing of Tomb Raider. It's just a different new take, no less worthy to be called Tomb Raider than any other game.

But I want the old Lara back.

The Lara with the huge lips and perky smile. The Lara with the wide hips and jutting breasts. The Lara that was an adventurer, in the old school way. I want her back. And I intend to make my case for that, here.

Before you say that I'm a big old horndog that just wants to see a woman with an improbable anatomy, let me get this out of the way: I am and that's part of the reason. Why not. What's wrong with wanting a fictional character to be physically desirable to me? You wouldn't ask for a "serious" version of Jacob from Twilight, with all the cheesecake removed.  He was built for cheesecake, and so was Lara Croft. It's why we loved them.

Some might say Lara Croft's body was exaggerated and ridiculous. And I say...yeah, that was kind of the point.

You see, Lara was a caricature. Caricatures, for all of you who haven't heard, is an exaggerated abstraction , where you take a character's most prominent features and blow them out of proportion. Say, for example, you want to make a caricature of Barrack Obama. You would do something like this.





Now, for the ur examples of a caricature of a sensual woman, you have, say Betty Boop...

Betty Boop gets too much head.

Or that chick from the Tex Avery cartoons...

(Sonic 06 joke)

Or Jessica Rabbit, who is a parody of those kind of characters taken to extremes.

They're all wearing one dress between them.

A lot could be made that Lara's sole appeal was her enormous funbags and nothing else, to which I would reply negatively. For you see, if that's the case, how could she have made it into 2015? She wasn't the ONLY sexy female character to exist. Not the least clothed, not the biggest tittied. You'd think the moment the next mynx showed up we'd all declare Lara over and move on. But no.

Because you see, Lara Croft became an icon at some point. You could put her in a crowd, and tell she was Lara Croft. Even if she was dressed completely different.To Prove that, I have devised a social excersise.

Hover your mouse above THIS link. Do not click yet.  When you open it, it will lead you to an image. Find Lara Croft in the crowd. Now click.


If you think I'm lying, I'm going to play a game with you. I'm  making a collage of faces below. Spot Lara Croft. Come on. I double dog dare you. I double my dogs.



Now, which Lara did you spot before?



Now, this isn't an indictment of the new series, it's art direction, or it's gameplay. Again, too poor to judge by myself. I'm just saying, if I where calling the shots, I'd take Lara back to her roots in caricature. The whole world would be exagerated and cartoony and FUN.



I do somewhat question that now that videogames and it's characters can look like litterally anything, show anything onscreen, that Lara now looks like just another woman. Splendorous graphical showcase, but a boring, safe choice, in my opinion.

And we could have BOTH, you know. The Same way Batman acknoweledges the 60's TV series as an old take and not as an old shame, there could be a sub-line of TR games running counter to Nu-Raider. I don't know. Maybe some day.

Where are all the arcades gone? at 11:45 AM

Misery loves company, and now failing arcades and failing movie  often theaters live together.

I grew up in a different time. I sometimes ponder on how different it was, in general. In many respects I kinda have to tip my hat and admit that this era is better in a lot of ways. It´s hard to resist the urge to fall into unnecessary nostalgia for things that where merely the perspective of a wide eyed young one, though.

The pleasures of the young. For me entertainment didn´t have to be groundbreaking, because I had no ground yet. Some of the better memories I have is of arcades.

Even as I struggle to remember who was my 4rth grade teacher and what she looked like, my mind can take me back pretty quickly to where I was, when I first saw and played Street Fighter 2 on an old cafetin as my dad bought breakfast and a stack of Muy Interesatante magazines. I remember seeing Time Killers and how that shitty game caught my imagination with it´s gruesome eviscerations(I distinctly recall I believed the game's Rancid and Thug where actually Street Fighter's Guile and Blanka).  I don´t remember my father´s birthdate from memory, but I sure remember when I first walked into a skull ridden arcade in San Juan, now long gone. I can still feel how nervous my dad was at this place.

I loved arcades. There used to be 2 on our biggest mall, Plaza las Americas. One in the Food Court, one in the  exit. Pretty much every mall had at least 1, and always with new, exciting, colorful games.

But the arcade era is over. Which malls still do have Arcades, tend to have mostly old games. It's common belief that Arcades where eventually beaten by their more convenient cousins, home consoles. I mean, why play a game for a quarter, when you can own it for 80? Console graphics eventually reached and surpassed Arcades. It's obvious that arcades couldnt compete with that.

Or is it obvious? To truly understand what happened to arcades, you need to understand how Arcades as a business work.

When you see an Arcade  cabinet in a Stop and Play or a dingy bar, that machine doesn't belong to the place in question. The machine is rented. The owners of the machine rent it to the  owners of the place, and they in place need to make enough money from it each month to offset the cost of having the machine, and obviously any taxes and state licenses involved in renting a cabinet.

Let's start really basic. Let's say Pacman. A Sega Genesis could run it. An NES could run it. Statistically speaking, the machine you are reading this on can run Pacman. How much do you think it costs you a month to have a Pacman Arcade? If your answer is thousands of dollars, then yes, that's about the answer. A firm specializing in Arcades say your arcadey budget for a small Arcade place should be 250,000, and a cool million if you want any serious arcading. And remember, this is during the time when Arcades are DEAD.

Now, far be it from me to question how these arcade renters run their biz, but  here´s what I'm thinking. You buy a 400 dollar PC, a 300 dollar monitor, 100 + USB coin up a 100 dollar sound system, some wood, and it's an arcade cabinet. You need only put some games on it, which is not that hard to do anymore, and it's done. You could permanently sell it to a small business for 2000, and occasionally sell them new games when the old ones lose their luster. It could be a whole new thing.

We could have like "Steam Arcade". Like, its the same as Steam, in that there's a bunch of games available to buy, only these games are meant for this cheaper arcade systems. The arcade owner doesn't have to have a huge cabinet sent from abroad just to test if people would play so and so game, they'd just download it and trial it. If it's a moneymaker the arcade owner, he can do go on and buy the full version. It doesn't have to be a buy, it can be a lease.

The games could be as simple as a Flappy Bird Knock Off, or as complex as some kind of action adventure with saves and stuff. Again, your average piece of crap netbook can probaly run games as  far back as N64.

But no. It costs a  a quarter of a million bucks to set up a handful of fighting games from before the Obama Administration, and God help you if you run it without getting your papers in order first. But then there's repairs, electricity costs, and what have you. And since it costs so much, those that even want to do it cant really stray away from the familiar faces, because it costs a bunch of money and you don't want to risk your entire business on an unproven sort.


It's easy to fall prey to the thinking that Arcades are something that just stopped being a functional business because it wasn't necessary in a new era of committed gamers who wanted to own their games. I supposed that's partly true. But the problem I think, was exacerbated by high prices to those who rented arcades, which, during crunch time, kept more arcades off the streets, and as a consequence, kept more arcade games from being developed, which created a circle of stagnation.

You know what they put in Plaza las Americas where the food court arcade used to be? A wall. And that's what infuriates me the most. It could be a place where the owners make money, kids get together and appreciate video games, old classics persist and new classics flourish. It could be a place. But now it's not even been replaced by something more advanced. It's just been replaced by apathetic mortar, indifferent to potential and growth. Feeding no one. Bringing no joy.

I mean, maybe it's just the nostalgia again. Maybe Arcades do should go away forever. Maybe they don't belong in this millenium. Maybe what we need is more blank walls. What do you think?

Nothing Ever Changes at 6:45 AM

BGE investigates. The Special Move Problem at 1:17 PM

Yeah, good luck pulling this shit off in an Xbox 360 controller.

I like fighting games.  For a long, long time I've loved them. My first experience with them was walking into a shop with my dad, and out in the corner, was Street Fighter 2.
After the obligatory parental beggary, I convinced my old man to  lend me of his money to try out this strange machine of wonder, which promised  the excitement of battle.

I lost, of course. I picked Guile because he looked cool, and when you're  7 and playing a random game that's all you need.  I did not know how to play Street Fighter. Guile is a charge character. You're expected to hold back for a few seconds, hold forward, and, not letting go forward push on your choice of 3 out of 6 overall buttons to show a projectile. Which is fair and lovely, once you know it, but as a newbie picking up a game blindly trying to achieve "fun" it's a bit over your head.

He also had a move where you hold down, and then up and a button in a similar fashion. But of course, if you do it wrong, you'll wind up jumping, which is not what you want to be doing in the early 90's because air blocking hasn't been invented yet.


Special Moves as we know them where invented with the first Street Fighter machine, which had pads that you punched and, depending of how much strenght you put into it, would do either regular moves or the now famed Hadouken. But as these pads proved not sturdy enough to withstand the blows of player all over the world, they where replaced with the 6 button layout we all know and love. The Special moves where performed with twirls meant to emulate the movement of Ryu's hands to perform the actual move. And that solved the only problem Street Fighter had and everybody loved it forever.

Diamond in the rough.

Nah, just kidding. A couple years more later Capcom made a sequel to Street Fighter. Now you could play as any of the characters in the game, all of which had different  special moves from Ryu. Well, except Ken. Besides the twirls, we where introduced to the fast tap for characters like Chun Li and Honda, charge attack for characters like Guile, and...I'm told Zangief has Special Moves, too, I'm gonna check back on that.

As you may know, Street Fighter 2 was a huge hit, sucking up money in Arcades, Consoles, and on merchandise. Imitators quickly pulled up on the scene, trying to emulate Capcom's success by emulating Capcom's gameplay and characters. Now, don't get me wrong, imitators doesn't mean that they didn't innovate or that they whern't any good. But basically every fighting game under the sun that was released after SF2 started with a solid Street Fighter base, including the idea and, for the most part, execution of special moves. It just became a thing that fighting games do because that's what a fighting game is.

But I don't think "that's just the way it's always been" is a satisfying answer to why fighting games continue to include special moves. 


I still remember the uproar when Capcom announced MVC3 would have a Simple Mode. The  VS series had always been a simpler take on Capcom's increasingly convoluted Street FIghter series, which continued to pile on technicallities to the allienation of casual fans. But even in that, the concept of being able to pull of special moves without applying rote memorization seemed like giving in to the devil itself.

"Simple"? NEVER!

Rote memorization is so expected, that Netherrealm actually went ahead and added a pay-for-easy-Fatalities option to Mortal Kombat X, to the chagrin of many. But they're not angry they're still expected to learn a secret little jig to perform a key feature in a game, but that someone might bypass it and perform the move without knowing and executing the secret handshake.

When you see what is known as "high level gameplay", rote memorization trumps all.  Once someone figures out the one combo that just  can't be escaped, high level matches start deevolving into a game of who lets their guard down first.

It's either bragging rights in a videogame or keeping those carpals going.

So, do we need Special Moves? There's  no univeral answer, but I'd argue that, no, we don't need them. The 3D side of fighting games that draws more from Virtua Fighter and Tekken, such as Soul Calibur, Dead or Alive has mostly done away with them. The availability of different attacks in there is mostly tied to no more than holding in a direction and pressing one of the attack buttons, or combining two attack buttons. I never had to sit down and read a guide to know the very basic of Tina Armstrong moves.  Soul Calibur  has scores of moves for each character, and most of those aren't tied to twirls and spins.

Now, yes, these games don't have "special moves" as much as "just moves". It's no coincidence that Street Fighter and Mortal Kombat are back to being stuck in a 2D plane. They just couldn't mesh "sidestepping 3D" and "Shooting Fireballs" in a way that makes sense. After all the EX and Armageddon nonsense they're back just pretending that third dimension never existed. But there is another game that does have directional input: Nintendo's Smash Bros.

Some are reluctant to call Smash a fighting game. But why wouldn't it be?  It's got strategy, focuses on combat, and has special moves. It's specials, of course, are tied to pushing a Special button and the direction you push. Like the original Street Fighter, the context it tied to the direction you press: Press Special + Down on the air and if your character has a dive attack that's probably where you'll find it. Press Special + Up to dash upward. It's super simple. You can leave out the memory crap and focus on core fighting strategy.

Now, take out the Party fighter stuff. Imagine you had a traditional, Angry Japanese Guy 2d type fighter. You have a special button. You have a special move for Special + nothing, SP + forward, SP + forward + up, SP + forward + down, SP + down, SP + down + back, SP + back, SP + up + back, SP + up and SP + up + forward. That's 8 Special moves, more than you have for most character in SF 2. You could always have 2 special buttons. You could have 2 variations of each move, just like how in SF you can get different kinds of Fireballs according to which punch button you press. Or you could just have 16 specials, if you're so inclined. And you'd still have 4 core buttons left for those punches and kicks everybody loves.






Sure, you and I know how to pull of a Hadoken. We went through it. But out there, there's a younger us, who sees Scorpion and Sub Zero shooting ice and spears at each other, and he thinks it's the coolest thing he's ever seen. He wants to do that. And if we tie up all the cool stuff behind button combinations no one could figure naturally on their own, he might very justifiably take his buisness elswhere, to another game that DOESN'T Require working knoweledge of a 20 + year game genre to have fun.

Want it or not, casuals ARE the future of fighting games, because every one of us started by casually playing a game for fun. And whether you wound up  winning EVO or just tricking people into thinking Megaman X was in Marvel vs Capcom 3, it all depended on whether you had fun during those first times to see if you stuck with it. If we can put aside our pride for a bit, we could grow the community beyond the people we already have. We could grow fighting games as a genre. And that's good for everyone.

Open letter to Steve Gaynor at 4:12 PM



This is the guy I'm talking to, Google Image Search

Greetings, MR Gaynor. I would like to say I'm a big fan, but alas, I'm barely aware of your work. As of late my finances keep me from enjoying most modern games. I did see the ad for your game, Gone Home. It looks intriguing and well done.

I read your piece regarding John Walker's article on the public domain, and how games should become public domain after 20 years. And I want to reply to that, because the public domain is a subject that highly interests me as of late.

One day your game, Gone Home, will be public domain. That won't be within most our lifetimes, in modern law.  Your characters, your stories, they are yours, until after 75 years after you die(if you, as a person, own the IP. If Fullbright owns it, and it does, make that 95 years starting with this one).

But let's examine exactly what would happen if Gone Home went public domain in 20 years.

Everyone would be able to duplicate your game. Admitedly, having everyone be able to make their own Gone Homes would cut into your profits from selling the game. It is interesting, because games, unlike Music or Movies, have to essentially be remade for each platform they are on. In the 2030s, who knows what platforms will exist?  Will people start porting the Game to Super IPhone 25, Nintendo WaHoo and Game Implant? Possibly.

However, this will not stop Steve Gaynor from also doing so. What's more, as the original creator you should have priority if your game still piques people's interest 20 years down the line. As someone who is presumably still a force in the games industry, Steve Gaynor would have the advantage over most people in this. Batzarro's Gone Home would obviously hold less interest than Steve Gaynor presents: Gone Home: Game of the Decade edition.

Somebody could improve or ruin upon your work. Somebody could absolutely make a new version of Gone Home that will make people forget your version. This is less likely if Gone Home is still hot enough to be selling in two decades, but it certainly happened to Corman's Little Shop of Horror. While most of us know the the musical movie with Rick Moranis, it was once a black and white horror comedy made and never re-registered. They took something from the past and said "let's give this another angle."

On the other hand somebody could just make the a worster version of gome home. Somebody could make Gone Home into the exact opposite of what you intended.

While this could potentially make you sad, it would not (and should not) stop you from producing your own remake, sequel, or reboot of Gone Home.

Roger Corman did not crawl into a hole and die because his ideas where profiting other people and neither did Romero after his zombie movie went public domain, which, I don't need to tell you has resulted in plenty of people utilizing zombies in their work. Romero still works today. Corman still works today. Steve Gaynor can continue to work today.

 

You also point out that the industry itself needs this. That the people who pay for making a game would need the sales from the old game to fuel their publishing of new games. If we take that income from them by allowing ANYONE to make their own version, well, that's just bad for the industry.

 

Games are indeed an investment, and nobody invests hoping that their product will be feeding people decades after their death. If that seems exaggerated, well this is current copyright law.  Life of the Author(that would be you) plus 75, and years for corporate owned works(i.e. The Fullbright Company owns the right to Gone Home, regardless of if Steve Gaynor is alive or part of it or if Disney buys it)  

 

Vidoeogames are far too recent to be part of the public domain. The entirety of the medium is enshrouded in copyright laws designed to achieve maximum profits for IP owners, and minimum wiggle room for those wanting to use those without paying.  Many works are already being lost to this law, and I expect  the effect would be doubly harsh on the medium, if not for our ability and knack to duplicate the works ourselves.

 

 

 

In 20 years Gone Home will still be under copyright. The Fullbright Company will still be able to duplicate and resell it at a whim, or not, if it still owns it(and regardless of Steve Gaynor). Maybe it doesn't. In 20 years Gone Home could be a curiosity from this decade. Something we talk about infrequently, rather than revisit constantly. Maybe it's become like Ninja Baseball Batman, something you literally can't play unless you break the law. Maybe, like the Valis series and other games from  the defunct Telnet, it'll be something we talk about someday selling, rather than something we can actually play legally.

 

It would be sad for future generations NOT to be able to enjoy Gone Home because of some odd expectations of continual profit from the works of 2 decades ago, which, I may add, are not necessarily invalidated by someone else making their own Gone Home. But the law has spoken, and copyright hoarding is, apparently, good for creativity, besides being  good for the business. Mind you, I'm sure the business would appreciate other people's works being available to re-sell, reuse, and remix, and characters to rework.

 

Look at movies. As much as certain firms(Disney, most of all) have pushed for copyright to last until the heat death of the universe, they don't mind that they can use zombies, Dracula, the Frankenstein Monster, and the Hunchback of Notre Dam. They don't mind that anyone can make a movie about Noah, Jesus, The Little Mermaid, Snow White(Disney, most of all). "Now owning the work wholesale" is not equal to "Not being able t, haha)to profit from it." In fact, a games distribution/development company like the Fullbright company  if game characters and concepts  and games had lapsed into the public domain, would themselves be able to work off other people's ideas.

 

 

 It would be indeed rare and special if Gone Home is still profitable in itself after 20 years as a stand alone product. But realistically most works aren't even profitable within the first DECADE of their existence.  Is it a fair trade that the majority of works that won't be profitable  should stay behind a lawsuit shaped wall of fear, just so the few products that are profitable can enjoy the continual legal protection?

 

So you say game companies having exclusive rights to resell their own work  will "encourage them" to make NEW product, based on the profits from old games? Won't that just encourage them to drag out their old games constantly? I mean, Capcom's profits from Street Fighter 2 on XBLA aren't telling Capcom to make Darkstalkers 4, or even (New Franchise). They are telling Capcom selling Street Fighter 2 is good, and they should do it on every new console, Phone, Tablet and anything else. Videogames are not "bands", and game publishers aren't looking for "fresh new talent".

 

So yes, I disagree with you on this, but, alas, to your fortune, copyright already lasts as much as 175 years, if the author where to die 100 years old. That's almost the whole of time America has existed. Corporate works at least have copyright for 95 years. That's what, half the time America has existed?

 

If copyright had always been like this , Oliver Twist would still be under copyright.  Sherlock Holmes would still be under copyright,  and basically most of the works in American History would only a few decades ago begin trickling into the public domain. But maybe publishers could use the windfall of those profits from works 150 years old to publish new, unproven writers, huh?

 

So I disagree, obviously. I think that copyright is doing to games the opposite of what it was expected it would do to the "sciences and the useful arts" in the constitution. But that's not your fault, Steve Gaynor. I am, though, trying to get more people to know about the perils of excessive copyright. In this sense, I thank you, for bringing this topic to light, so that we may discuss it.

 

 

Post-post 9-11 at 7:55 PM

It's been 13 years since the towers fell. I'm sure most of you have been made aware of this. If not, well, I think we are under orders to never forget.

I was 16 at the time, essentially the middle of my life  up to this point. I remember where I was. But I also remember other  things from that year. I remember a Britney Spears interview from Summer where she spoke of how great a year it had been. We'd all gotten over our fear the Y2k bug/The Great King of Terror would end civilization. I felt well on my way to one of those optimist futures where food comes in pills and cars fly.

I also remember a discarded magazine from the library. It was Time, from before 2000. It wrote of the things we feared might happen in The millennial new year.  Sure enough, Bin Laden's face was in there.

I wish those of you born after 2001  could see what I'm talking about. I don't want to let nostalgia grab hold, because I was fairly young, but in all my pre 9-11 life the major wars America was involved where nothing compared to Iraq and Afghanistan. The idea of carrying water or a Hockey stick into a plane was not something we had to watch out for. We had terrorism! But we kind of kept living.

We didn't just continue living in the Post 9-11 world. Not by a long shot. We decided whatever kept us safe, or felt like it would, was justifiable. The  2,977 that died on 9-11 are now joined by 6,717 that died in the War on Terror(I don't know if it's a succesful revenge to lose twice the people you are avenging), a conflict against the general idea of terrorism.  Said terrorism in this case took the shape of two sovereign countries who ended up  costing us 1.5 trillion dollars(so far) and being a detour from defeating the specific group that specifically Attacked America.

We sewed mistrust, and reaped it. After a few years of  war on terror, disillusion was born. Many, tired of the lies of the Government, turned abroad for their lies. Many fell in with conspiracy theorists. Yet many stuck fanatically fast to the government.  Much division ensued.

We did not rebuild the towers. We built a Museum to remind ourselves we once had towers. It's a poor choice if you ask me.

So am I saying everything used to be better? Absolutely not. This era is beautiful. Our phones used to only be useful for calling. And naked Batgirl drawings where a hassle to get.

But we're also still living in a Post 9-11 mentality. We're still looking over our shoulders. We're still thinking maybe we can stop 9-11 II if we let NSA spy on Americans, and hurt anyone we even suspect is a terrorist.

But this year, President Obama finally called used the T word instead of euphemising . It gives me hope, that maybe we're ready to move into a Post-post 9-11 mentality. A world where  we can live without feeling our choices are. getting  blown up by Dessert People or getting touched in the junk at the airport. A world where we don't have to roll our eyes when we talk about Freedom. A world where we're not at war anymore.

I don't know about you, but I'm ready for a Post-Post 9-11 world. Any old country can suffer a terrorist attack. It takes a truly great country to come out stronger.

Dead Horse Attack! Attack of the Clones at 7:46 AM

"We've got some leftovers. Reheat this and put on some 3D to mask the flavor".

Sure enough, everything’s coming up Star Wars  for the foreseeable future.  The New movies, along with the 3D-fied  re-releases that got canceled the fuck out because Disney don't play nice with competitors and now writing this seems a smidge more pointless but it's already written, are gonna have us quoting Yoda until our tongues bleed.

In the 3D pipeline next comes along the less maligned  Attack of the Clones. With it’s reduced kid actor factor and  Jar Jar’s presence lessened,  and being  sandwiched between the overhyped  Ep I and the hilarious finale, I think this movie is far too ignored when it comes to the prequels. And with good reason. While the other 2 movies produced some iconography to go  along with their dubious achievements  , Attack of the Clones does not generate anything in the way of memorable, iconic moments.

On a personal note, this is the only Star Wars movie I own. It was sort of an impulse shopping choice. I already knew I wasn't impressed by it, but it was cheap and Star Wars. I've never even seen it fully, and that only ever happened with a select few DVD's of mine, including Ghost in the Shell Reborenning and some Civil War movie with zombies. I at least tried to watch the Civil War zombies movie before it became gay(no offense, gay people. I was already branching out of my element with Zombies and Civil War before the gayness. 2 elements I don't care about is fine, 3 is stretching.)

What I’m saying is that Attack of the Clones is the worst Star Wars movie of all time, discounting the Ewok spinoff’s and Clone Wars CG movie(mostly because I didn’t see them).Here’s my reasons why.

George Lucas is a creepy, creepy man

"Not like sand at all..."

The movie is notorious for it’s romantic subplot. If anything happens in here, it’s set up of how every single thing that happens in Star Wars ever is all because of a dame. And killing children, avenging a mother and having more power. But most of all because of a dame.

Regardless how charming you think sand is, you have to remember that when Anakin met Queen Padme, he was a mere, doomed child. After Naboo, they did not meet until years later, when he’s ben inducted into the Jedi order and she’s been downgraded from Queen to Senator (I don’t think Lucas understands how Monarchy works.) Once he meets  her again, they’re all in love and stuff.

I guess what I’m saying is that old G.L. meant for Anakin a young boy who grew up in poverty, to have fallen in love with Parme, a fully grown woman  of royal blood since the moment they met. There's precedent and everything.  I’d spare you the thought of  Jake Lloyd wacking off to holocrons of Padmen’s senatorial hearings…but I hate you.

Now, I’m not saying that it’s wrong for people to fall in love with people they met as kids, or for people to fall in love despite large age differences(let’s face it, even dramatically, the least age difference between Padme and Anakin is 7 years). But it’s strongly implied that they fell in love when they first met. That this movie confirms that “are you an angel?” is a pick up line is just plain wrong.

Villains are miss or miss

"It's a stupid plan, alright? Hopefully we'll leave this franchise and get paid before we get decapitated."

Episode I killed the one thing everyone agreed was good about it: Marauding, scary-face-painted Darth Maul. For what it’s worth he was genuinely  well executed, missing only some character. They set up the threat, had him chase the good guys, showed his menace by having him kill a good guy, and then he died.

So EpII had at least the one good thing to live up to. It’s villains where Jango Fett and Count Dooku. Let’s break it down.

Jango is the father of Bobba Fett, who is not important at all in any movies. But as both a merchandisable entity and a callback to older films, I get it. Sure, where Bobba Fett came from before  dying like crap is important. Whatev.

Thing is, Jango, who sets up events by trying to kill Padme for some reason, is not a good emerging batter for Maul.Where Maul  offered constant menace , Jango is not an active danger. Where Maul upped the Ante  for Star Wars combat, Jango’s high point is that space chase, which was marred with with the whole “take your kid to kill Jedi” thing.

As  much as Maul was a wasted opportunity for Obi Wan to fight later, Jango is a complete waste. He’s after Anakin’s girl, (and this is sort of his love story) and yet there’s no sense that Anakin cares about getting that guy. Or Obi Wan might want a rematch for his beat down at Kamino. But that doesn’t happen. Hell, If Padme killed Jango, if might have given her a little edge. But instead, Samuel L Jackson in a robe kills him. The guy who precipitated all the films events just gets offed casually by  a character who doesn’t do much else. Hurray?

But I guess Jango is just the warming act to the film’s real villain: Count Dooku. Dooku is, no joke, the least impressive Star Wars villain ever.

There are several factors that make a good villain. One is menace. Darth Vader had this. Vader was shown to be a menace early on, and powerfull enough to command the loyalty of his troops. Count Dooku is first mentions along the lines of “no way is this guy evil!” And that’s at nearly half the movie!

Right before our climax we meet our dreaded…um…political idealist. An old bearded man played by Christopher Lee(well, you could have implied the former from the latter). I hope no one takes me for a hater: I like Christopher Lee. It’s just the fact that the other factor Star Wars villains is otherworldly appearances.  Guys like Jabba, Mail, and Vader have  outlandish physical  designs, which help boost the fact they are the bad guys. Dooku is Christopher Lee’s head on a stuntman, in an attempt to be “hip” with the kids that where all into Lord of the Rings.

I guess if Dooku had a motivation, it could  offset the plainness. But he’s a political idealist(and a former Jedi, because apparently you CAN just up and quit) for something we won’t see.  Maybe he’s against gay marriage, or maybe he wants to to clear away the corruption of the Senate…by establishing a clearly evil dictator in place. You’d think after all the political bullcrap they put in the movies, they’d at least make this more clear.

The movie is the least essential to the others

"Something's going on down there. Even if I wasn't a Clone I still don't think I'd know what."

You could make the case the prequels where wholly unnecessary as expansionary devices to the Star Wars mythology. Indeed, the backstories of characters like C3PO and BobbaFett are unrequired at best, and what it does to Yoda, Anakin, and Obi Wan is not much of an addition.

But in truth, they do set up up the main conflict  and characters from the OT. But do you need to watch Attack of the Clones for that?

See, Episode I is the set up to the whole scene, but it’s mostly it’s own movie. It Establishes the bad guys, the good guys, and the mysterious mystery of the Sith. II and III are more of a tandem. But what does II set up? Well, romance and a few injuries. At the end of I they where at war with robots, and by the start of Ep III they’re at war with robots. That an unconcluded conflict was started on an unconcluded battle is not necessary knowledge. You could arguably skip II and skip straight to III, and not be missing much.

In dramatic terms, the selling point of Anakin’s descent into the dark side is very mishandled. Besides having to regress his characterization later in III, the whole thing where he avenges his mother by slaying a whole city worth of people is  treated like a misdemeanor, and plays no part into how and why he becomes Vader. When you can fit a whole TV show between movies, perhaps there was no need for a movie.

But maybe it’s a trouble with  middling chapters to preset trilogies. Matrix Reloaded, Pirates of the Caribean 2…a filler episode might fly on TV, but not as a movie.

The movie is most dependent on the others

Obiwan's gonna pick Cable and Magneto for the Umpteenth time!

If you haven’t seen any other Star Wars film ever, or the millions of hours spent discussing their story, cultural impact, or characters, the second part of the second trilogy is a bad place to start.

It starts of with someone being targeted for murder for no reason. There’s two people who have met before, and are sort of in love. There’s a Lizard man who wants revenge against  a senator.  And Christopher Lee has a hologram of a ball.

Trying to shoehorn as much OT iconography and backstories hurts this movie like no other. When Dooku casually checks out  the plans of the Death Star, it assumes somebody asked where the Death Star was designed, and hopes they aren’t disappointed the answer is “some bug guy's planet you ain’t ever heard of ”.

Basically in it’s entire running nothing happens that isn’t set up by the prequel, or meaningful without the OT and just as something threatens to happen it ends. For what happened, tune in to Clone Wars, on Cartoon Network!Or don't. It's cancelled!

Everything is disappointing

The Bar was set pretty low after Episode I became a running joke. You’d think by curtailing the excesses and working on the  script more, the movie could have been at least closer to the originals in spirit.

But that is not the way of the Lucas. Rather than focus on the franchise's strengths, it tries things that where never a part of it such as investigation, and romance. And I would commend the innovation (and continued influence on the Prequels of movies like The Matrix, Crouching Tiger/Hidden Dragon,  and Gladiator) if it had been well weaved into the mold(I lost track of the metaphor, I think). But I don’t think in the future people will look fondly on the scene where Anakin rides the space cow in a montage, or when a kid explains to Obi Wan how someone probably did something on purpose.

And no, no curtailing excesses, here. Throw everything in, boys! Yoda fighting, a giant arena battle with monsters, C3PO in a crazy conveyor belt. This is all in the last half hour of the movie, and I left out stuff!

14 Year old me loved Episode I. 17 year old me felt no hype for Attack. And once it was shown to me, I felt extremely underwhelmed, and I didn’t even have expectations for it. Every other Star Wars film leaves you with something. This one just leaves you.

Dead Horse Attack! Attack of the Clones at 7:46 AM

"We've got some leftovers. Reheat this and put on some 3D to mask the flavor".

Sure enough, everything’s coming up Star Wars  for the foreseeable future.  The New movies, along with the 3D-fied  re-releases that got canceled the fuck out because Disney don't play nice with competitors and now writing this seems a smidge more pointless but it's already written, are gonna have us quoting Yoda until our tongues bleed.

In the 3D pipeline next comes along the less maligned  Attack of the Clones. With it’s reduced kid actor factor and  Jar Jar’s presence lessened,  and being  sandwiched between the overhyped  Ep I and the hilarious finale, I think this movie is far too ignored when it comes to the prequels. And with good reason. While the other 2 movies produced some iconography to go  along with their dubious achievements  , Attack of the Clones does not generate anything in the way of memorable, iconic moments.

On a personal note, this is the only Star Wars movie I own. It was sort of an impulse shopping choice. I already knew I wasn't impressed by it, but it was cheap and Star Wars. I've never even seen it fully, and that only ever happened with a select few DVD's of mine, including Ghost in the Shell Reborenning and some Civil War movie with zombies. I at least tried to watch the Civil War zombies movie before it became gay(no offense, gay people. I was already branching out of my element with Zombies and Civil War before the gayness. 2 elements I don't care about is fine, 3 is stretching.)

What I’m saying is that Attack of the Clones is the worst Star Wars movie of all time, discounting the Ewok spinoff’s and Clone Wars CG movie(mostly because I didn’t see them).Here’s my reasons why.

George Lucas is a creepy, creepy man

"Not like sand at all..."

The movie is notorious for it’s romantic subplot. If anything happens in here, it’s set up of how every single thing that happens in Star Wars ever is all because of a dame. And killing children, avenging a mother and having more power. But most of all because of a dame.

Regardless how charming you think sand is, you have to remember that when Anakin met Queen Padme, he was a mere, doomed child. After Naboo, they did not meet until years later, when he’s ben inducted into the Jedi order and she’s been downgraded from Queen to Senator (I don’t think Lucas understands how Monarchy works.) Once he meets  her again, they’re all in love and stuff.

I guess what I’m saying is that old G.L. meant for Anakin a young boy who grew up in poverty, to have fallen in love with Parme, a fully grown woman  of royal blood since the moment they met. There's precedent and everything.  I’d spare you the thought of  Jake Lloyd wacking off to holocrons of Padmen’s senatorial hearings…but I hate you.