It's 2011, so what better way to start than by listing my favorite movies of 2010? Probably lots of better ways, but here we go anyway.
Funniest Flick:
Dinner for Schmucks
Wicked funny. Steve Carell plays the perfect sympathetic moron.
Best "Don't Let Twilight Ruin the Genre" Vampire Movie:
Let Me In - (Honorable Mention: Daybreakers)
What does a child vampire do to survive? What does she do when she falls in love? Apparently she eats people, but probably would have done that anyway.
Most Disappointing:
The Last Airbender
We hoped Shyamalan wouldn't be able to screw up such a great story since it already was great without his help... but he did. Ugh. Sad.
I Don't Care How Bad It Is, I Liked It Anyway:
The Expendables
It doesn't matter how old the actors are, or how bad the script is. Big guns, beat-downs and explosions are fun.
Best Sequel:
Toy Story 3
What a perfect way to wrap up the series. And a great imaginative story about what happens to old toys.
Best Unashamedly Guilty Pleasure:
Machete
Ultimate gratuitousness, and no apologies. Awesome.
Most Pleasant Surprise:
Sorceror's Apprentice
A nicely executed, fun movie with cool special effects, and Nicholas Cage didn't totally suck in it.
Best Movie Based On a Video Game:
Prince of Persia
Could have been better, but still pretty good. And Jake Gyllenhall didn't bang any dudes.
Best Movie Based On the Whole Concept of Video Games:
Tron Legacy
Nice updates and improvements to "The Grid" but a somewhat shaky premise as to just how the bad guy was gonna invade the real world. Fortunately they didn't linger on the whole "Jeff Bridges is God" thing and just stuck to the fun stuff.
Best Animated Feature That Isn't Pixar
Despicable Me
Somewhat predictable but completely entertaining
Best Movie I Didn't See in 2010 but Mean to See in 2011
Tie: Kickass / Inception
Wednesday, January 5, 2011
Wednesday, December 1, 2010
Don't believe. Think.
Have you seen any controversial billboards lately? Atheists are getting more aggressive at standing up for what they don't believe. Some serious money is being spent preaching against preaching.
Religion has been a touchy subject as long as the concept has existed. It will continue to be a touchy subject because you can't tell someone what they believe is wrong. You can't tell them that because there's no way to prove any facts in religion. It's all about belief. And belief for some people is stronger than thought. Just like some people believe that they can bet the house and win the bet, or that "this time things will be different."
Humans have an uncanny ability to take something good and screw it up by making it better. We fail to realize that there are too many different meanings of "better" for all the different people, and one person's better is another person's worse. So rather than accept things the way they are, we try to make everybody happy, reducing something that was already good to a watered down, remanufactured version of what it was. Such is the case with religion. We took life itself, which is fine as it is, and tried to assign a greater meaning to it in order to make ourselves feel more important, and to give ourselves some comfort in a world full of mysteries. We're too impatient to let the meaning of life come to us at it's own pace, so we created a meaning for it – one that suits our needs.
Unfortunately, different people have different needs, and different versions of the "truth" have led to differences in belief; and people don't like it when you dispute their beliefs. It makes us fight, maybe even kill somebody.
Thankfully we have science to help find our way through the thorns of belief. Science doesn't take anything on faith. It doesn't accept what we want to be true instead of what is proved to be true. It tests a theory, and either proves it to be true or goes back to the drawing board for a new theory to test. Science holds fact above all else, and facts are true even in spite of our desires. The universe doesn't care about us, and it won't change to please us.
Well I guess some people need the support of their beliefs to get them through the day. I can see how existence could seem scary and lonely without divine design. Nobody wants to feel that we're on our own against the universe. But we're not on our own. There are billions of us here. Imagine if we all pulled in the same direction what we could accomplish.
We could try to pull together and still be sensitive to others' beliefs, live and let live, but that's the fundamental problem with religion. That is, once you accept that the ultimate authority is not on this planet, but rather a spiritual entity, you're potentially dangerous to the rest of us corporeal beings. Because when push comes to shove, are you going to do right by your fellow humans, or do right by your heavenly father? When faced with a choice between saving the lives of your brethren or saving your immortal soul, what's it gonna be? Is your responsibility to help make this world a better place for everyone, or to work for the greater glory of God?
Nobody can tell you what to believe, but I think if you stop and think about why you might believe something, you'll find it's because someone told you to. They may not have forced you to, but you're pretty much taking the entire meaning of life at someone's word. If you stop and think, examine the reality of belief, you just might realize that believing isn't enough. Believing is stopping short of thought. Stopping short of study. It's failing to do due dilligence to find real truth. Believing is giving up. Don't give up. We need you. Don't believe. Think.
Religion has been a touchy subject as long as the concept has existed. It will continue to be a touchy subject because you can't tell someone what they believe is wrong. You can't tell them that because there's no way to prove any facts in religion. It's all about belief. And belief for some people is stronger than thought. Just like some people believe that they can bet the house and win the bet, or that "this time things will be different."
Humans have an uncanny ability to take something good and screw it up by making it better. We fail to realize that there are too many different meanings of "better" for all the different people, and one person's better is another person's worse. So rather than accept things the way they are, we try to make everybody happy, reducing something that was already good to a watered down, remanufactured version of what it was. Such is the case with religion. We took life itself, which is fine as it is, and tried to assign a greater meaning to it in order to make ourselves feel more important, and to give ourselves some comfort in a world full of mysteries. We're too impatient to let the meaning of life come to us at it's own pace, so we created a meaning for it – one that suits our needs.
Unfortunately, different people have different needs, and different versions of the "truth" have led to differences in belief; and people don't like it when you dispute their beliefs. It makes us fight, maybe even kill somebody.
Thankfully we have science to help find our way through the thorns of belief. Science doesn't take anything on faith. It doesn't accept what we want to be true instead of what is proved to be true. It tests a theory, and either proves it to be true or goes back to the drawing board for a new theory to test. Science holds fact above all else, and facts are true even in spite of our desires. The universe doesn't care about us, and it won't change to please us.
Well I guess some people need the support of their beliefs to get them through the day. I can see how existence could seem scary and lonely without divine design. Nobody wants to feel that we're on our own against the universe. But we're not on our own. There are billions of us here. Imagine if we all pulled in the same direction what we could accomplish.
We could try to pull together and still be sensitive to others' beliefs, live and let live, but that's the fundamental problem with religion. That is, once you accept that the ultimate authority is not on this planet, but rather a spiritual entity, you're potentially dangerous to the rest of us corporeal beings. Because when push comes to shove, are you going to do right by your fellow humans, or do right by your heavenly father? When faced with a choice between saving the lives of your brethren or saving your immortal soul, what's it gonna be? Is your responsibility to help make this world a better place for everyone, or to work for the greater glory of God?
Nobody can tell you what to believe, but I think if you stop and think about why you might believe something, you'll find it's because someone told you to. They may not have forced you to, but you're pretty much taking the entire meaning of life at someone's word. If you stop and think, examine the reality of belief, you just might realize that believing isn't enough. Believing is stopping short of thought. Stopping short of study. It's failing to do due dilligence to find real truth. Believing is giving up. Don't give up. We need you. Don't believe. Think.
Monday, November 22, 2010
War of 1812
FINALLY! The Patriots get a win over the Colts.
Brady or Manning... http://www.stampedeblue.com/ calls it the War of 1812 (they may not have invented the title but that's where I found it).
For a while it seemed like a no-brainer who was better, all you had to do was look on each QB's hand and count the rings... 3-0 in favor of Brady. Even before either player entered the league the Colts were the Pats' whipping boys, but then the roles seemed to switch somewhere around the time Tedy Bruschi had his stroke. It was almost like the Patriots as a whole had a stroke and could no longer "play Patriots football" as fans had come to know it.
In 2006 the two teams met yet again in the AFC Championship game and the Patriots seemed to have them securely in the coffin, but Peyton and the rest of the Colts (cuz really, who else matters?) made a historic comeback that was as thrilling for Colts fans and Patriots haters, as it was deflating for Pats fans. Allegedly several players on the Patriots defense were quite ill at the time, but whatever they caught must be chronic and contagious because the defense has sucked for about half a decade now. I think it's time to sterilize the locker room. (Oh by the way, the Colts won the Super Bowl two weeks later against Rex Grossman and the Chicago Bears, a perfect Champ vs. Chump showdown. Pats-Colts was the real super bowl that year.)
That comeback was resurrected last year in the now infamous "fourth and two" game. Once again, Manning and the Colts managed to play 60 minutes of football all in the fourth quarter, and beat the Patriots once again. The tide had officially turned.
Yesterday it seemed like history would repeat itself once again in a very Groundhog Day manner. But this time it was going to happen on Patriots home turf... unacceptable. It was yet another thrilling game between the co-teams of the 2000's (yeah maybe Pittsburgh deserves to be mentioned too) but finally the Patriots actually made a play in the 4th quarter of a Colts game to preserve the win. Big 4th quarter plays against the Colts had become as rare as a Randy Moss hustle play.
So with this latest game in the books... who's better? Tom owns the single season TD record, and more Super Bowl rings than Peyton's whole family combined. Manning clearly throws the ball better. It doesn't seem to matter who's wearing the blue and white. If they're breathing, Peyton will hit them in the hands. Yet it just hasn't led to repeated championship success. Tom doesn't throw a very good deep ball, but with shifty, possession receivers he doesn't have to very often.
There are plenty of comparisons to make, but the real beauty of the contest is that it exists. Who can really say which player is better? What we really should appreciate is that we have these two guys at all. Their skills are undeniable. Their off-the-field images are squeaky clean, leaving little for fans to truly hate. When they play a game against one another, and it seems to happen every year, it's an event. They're the best of this generation, and maybe among the best of all time, and football fans should be thankful for such a gift. I can't wait to see the next battle in the War of 1812.
Brady or Manning... http://www.stampedeblue.com/ calls it the War of 1812 (they may not have invented the title but that's where I found it).
For a while it seemed like a no-brainer who was better, all you had to do was look on each QB's hand and count the rings... 3-0 in favor of Brady. Even before either player entered the league the Colts were the Pats' whipping boys, but then the roles seemed to switch somewhere around the time Tedy Bruschi had his stroke. It was almost like the Patriots as a whole had a stroke and could no longer "play Patriots football" as fans had come to know it.
In 2006 the two teams met yet again in the AFC Championship game and the Patriots seemed to have them securely in the coffin, but Peyton and the rest of the Colts (cuz really, who else matters?) made a historic comeback that was as thrilling for Colts fans and Patriots haters, as it was deflating for Pats fans. Allegedly several players on the Patriots defense were quite ill at the time, but whatever they caught must be chronic and contagious because the defense has sucked for about half a decade now. I think it's time to sterilize the locker room. (Oh by the way, the Colts won the Super Bowl two weeks later against Rex Grossman and the Chicago Bears, a perfect Champ vs. Chump showdown. Pats-Colts was the real super bowl that year.)
That comeback was resurrected last year in the now infamous "fourth and two" game. Once again, Manning and the Colts managed to play 60 minutes of football all in the fourth quarter, and beat the Patriots once again. The tide had officially turned.
Yesterday it seemed like history would repeat itself once again in a very Groundhog Day manner. But this time it was going to happen on Patriots home turf... unacceptable. It was yet another thrilling game between the co-teams of the 2000's (yeah maybe Pittsburgh deserves to be mentioned too) but finally the Patriots actually made a play in the 4th quarter of a Colts game to preserve the win. Big 4th quarter plays against the Colts had become as rare as a Randy Moss hustle play.
So with this latest game in the books... who's better? Tom owns the single season TD record, and more Super Bowl rings than Peyton's whole family combined. Manning clearly throws the ball better. It doesn't seem to matter who's wearing the blue and white. If they're breathing, Peyton will hit them in the hands. Yet it just hasn't led to repeated championship success. Tom doesn't throw a very good deep ball, but with shifty, possession receivers he doesn't have to very often.
There are plenty of comparisons to make, but the real beauty of the contest is that it exists. Who can really say which player is better? What we really should appreciate is that we have these two guys at all. Their skills are undeniable. Their off-the-field images are squeaky clean, leaving little for fans to truly hate. When they play a game against one another, and it seems to happen every year, it's an event. They're the best of this generation, and maybe among the best of all time, and football fans should be thankful for such a gift. I can't wait to see the next battle in the War of 1812.
Friday, October 8, 2010
Instant Replay
Once again, it seems a baseball team won a game it maybe shouldn't have. My apologies to all the baseball purists out there who want to keep the game played the way it was before World War 1, but it is indeed the year 2010. We have planes that fly through the air, and a polio vaccine. They even invented this doohickey called a Television which, I am certain, they would have used for instant replay if the technology existed back when baseball was born. Technology has made our lives better, and it can do the same for professional sports, including baseball.
Some argue that there's a "human element" to the game that must be preserved, and instant replay diminishes this human element. What about the humans who actually PLAY the games? Shouldn't THEY be the human element that matters most? Shouldn't their achievements or failures define the game and not the error of an official? If a man beats a throw to first through hard work and physical skill, shouldn't that human element be prioritized?
In a game of black & white issues, (safe or out, fair or foul, catch or no-catch) one would think there would be no controversy over whether or not to include instant replay. There is the issue of what to do with other baserunners not involved in a reviewed call, where to place them after the fact. But the NFL seems to have got it right. Some issues are reviewable, and some are not. You only get two challenges per game, and none of them can be used in the last two minutes of a half. Baseball could implement its own set of parameters. Balls & strikes wouldn't be reviewable, but a safe or out call at first base with nobody on base certainly could. How about a close play at home with two outs?
It seems to me that keeping instant replay out (or practically non-existent) in baseball is a terribly short-sighted effort to maintain the status quo and stay with the devil you know rather than the devil you don't. And if umpires cost millions of fans the euphoric feeling of winning a championship or witnessing a perfect game once in a while, I guess we'll just have to get used to it. And maybe 48 states was plenty too.
Some argue that there's a "human element" to the game that must be preserved, and instant replay diminishes this human element. What about the humans who actually PLAY the games? Shouldn't THEY be the human element that matters most? Shouldn't their achievements or failures define the game and not the error of an official? If a man beats a throw to first through hard work and physical skill, shouldn't that human element be prioritized?
In a game of black & white issues, (safe or out, fair or foul, catch or no-catch) one would think there would be no controversy over whether or not to include instant replay. There is the issue of what to do with other baserunners not involved in a reviewed call, where to place them after the fact. But the NFL seems to have got it right. Some issues are reviewable, and some are not. You only get two challenges per game, and none of them can be used in the last two minutes of a half. Baseball could implement its own set of parameters. Balls & strikes wouldn't be reviewable, but a safe or out call at first base with nobody on base certainly could. How about a close play at home with two outs?
It seems to me that keeping instant replay out (or practically non-existent) in baseball is a terribly short-sighted effort to maintain the status quo and stay with the devil you know rather than the devil you don't. And if umpires cost millions of fans the euphoric feeling of winning a championship or witnessing a perfect game once in a while, I guess we'll just have to get used to it. And maybe 48 states was plenty too.
Monday, August 30, 2010
Achievement: Blog Completed - 0 Points
"A thing done successfully, typically by effort, courage or skill."
Remember when the word "achievement" carried with it the connotation that you did something worthwhile, or useful, or relevant in the slightest? Something that was for the betterment of yourself or maybe even someone else? Well, video games have hijacked the word and twisted it to include tasks that, while often do require commitment and determination, are also utterly meaningless and are a complete waste of time and energy.
I just completed StarCraft 2, and it has achievement points. XBox Live may be the genesis of the new meaning of "achievement" but I'm not 100% on that. If you view someone's XBox Live gamer profile, you can see their gamer score which is a total of all their achievement points. Some of those points are for completing games or levels within games, but many of those points were gained by doing horribly inane, repetitive, boring tasks that did nothing to improve the gamer's actual game experience, although a few do in fact add a modicum of replay value.
But these are achievements in the loosest sense of the word. If you have a high gamer score, and you've gathered all or most of the achievements available to you, you've simply "achieved" a colossal waste of time and confirmed that you yourself are not doing anything useful or meaningful with your time. You've achieved a state of utter social sterility and ineffectuality, and to be proud of yourself or have a feeling of accomplishment after reaching a desired state of video game achievement points just shows how messed up your priorities are.
The worst perversion of the word happens when some gamer joins a matchmaking session, and asks the others who are in the game to HELP him or her get an achievement. For instance in a game of Halo, I was in a group in which someone asked if the rest of the players would allow themselves to line up and be massacred so this clown could get some points for killing the entire opposition all at once. I ask you, if we all just let this happen, in what way is it an "achievement"? Aside from the game itself saying that it is, it's completely fraudulent. I silently refused to comply and sneak-attacked the guy, on principle!
So not only have we come to a point where achievements can be things that hold no value, are not useful, and actually confirm that the achiever is a poor example of humanity, but some people actually try to gain these achievements on the charity of others, rather than by one's own merits. There may be a generation of gamers growing up with the idea that an achievement is something you gain by sitting in front of a TV all day, rather than by taking real initiative and contributing something to the world, or even to your own well-being. And worse, they may be proud to display such foolish behavior as if it's worth something to someone.
If I enjoy a game, I just play the game for my enjoyment, not for my perceived status among other gamers. Think about what all those extra "achievements" actually are. Are they worth the precious, irreplaceable time you'll burn gaining them? And when you do, what will you actually have gained?
Video game achievements are achievements like blogs (like this one) are achievements. Just about anybody can do them, they're a big waste of time, and they're only completed so the achiever can feel like he or she did something today. But really... does anyone else care? Is anyone impressed? Not likely.
If you read this blog you get a million achievement points. Enjoy.
Remember when the word "achievement" carried with it the connotation that you did something worthwhile, or useful, or relevant in the slightest? Something that was for the betterment of yourself or maybe even someone else? Well, video games have hijacked the word and twisted it to include tasks that, while often do require commitment and determination, are also utterly meaningless and are a complete waste of time and energy.
I just completed StarCraft 2, and it has achievement points. XBox Live may be the genesis of the new meaning of "achievement" but I'm not 100% on that. If you view someone's XBox Live gamer profile, you can see their gamer score which is a total of all their achievement points. Some of those points are for completing games or levels within games, but many of those points were gained by doing horribly inane, repetitive, boring tasks that did nothing to improve the gamer's actual game experience, although a few do in fact add a modicum of replay value.
But these are achievements in the loosest sense of the word. If you have a high gamer score, and you've gathered all or most of the achievements available to you, you've simply "achieved" a colossal waste of time and confirmed that you yourself are not doing anything useful or meaningful with your time. You've achieved a state of utter social sterility and ineffectuality, and to be proud of yourself or have a feeling of accomplishment after reaching a desired state of video game achievement points just shows how messed up your priorities are.
The worst perversion of the word happens when some gamer joins a matchmaking session, and asks the others who are in the game to HELP him or her get an achievement. For instance in a game of Halo, I was in a group in which someone asked if the rest of the players would allow themselves to line up and be massacred so this clown could get some points for killing the entire opposition all at once. I ask you, if we all just let this happen, in what way is it an "achievement"? Aside from the game itself saying that it is, it's completely fraudulent. I silently refused to comply and sneak-attacked the guy, on principle!
So not only have we come to a point where achievements can be things that hold no value, are not useful, and actually confirm that the achiever is a poor example of humanity, but some people actually try to gain these achievements on the charity of others, rather than by one's own merits. There may be a generation of gamers growing up with the idea that an achievement is something you gain by sitting in front of a TV all day, rather than by taking real initiative and contributing something to the world, or even to your own well-being. And worse, they may be proud to display such foolish behavior as if it's worth something to someone.
If I enjoy a game, I just play the game for my enjoyment, not for my perceived status among other gamers. Think about what all those extra "achievements" actually are. Are they worth the precious, irreplaceable time you'll burn gaining them? And when you do, what will you actually have gained?
Video game achievements are achievements like blogs (like this one) are achievements. Just about anybody can do them, they're a big waste of time, and they're only completed so the achiever can feel like he or she did something today. But really... does anyone else care? Is anyone impressed? Not likely.
If you read this blog you get a million achievement points. Enjoy.
Thursday, August 12, 2010
Two things I love... Comics and Video Games, but one is killing the other!
According to MacRumors.com Apple Computer has is seeking a patent on a method of taking a video game you just played, and turning the saved data into a comic book or similar medium. While it's an interesting idea in and of itself, to me it seems a little backward for this day and age.
Perhaps in my younger days I might have been interested in having a story version of Boogerman based on my style of play, but in 2010 wouldn't it be ten times cooler to have software that can read a comic book and create a game experience from it?
Comic books are a fading art form, but their creativity is not disappearing. It's merely being redirected into a medium that gives a lot more bang for... well, a lot more bucks.
I've been saying for a while that video games have become the comic books of this generation. My pals and I would ride our bikes down to the 7-11 to get candy and comics 25 years ago. At that time video games were Space Invaders, Pac-Man, Donkey Kong etc. They were great, classic games, but not much for story content.
The latest generation of video games play out like a movie, with almost photographic quality imagery and characters that really come to life especially when the voice acting is good. Gamers get to experience wonderfully imaginative and artfully produced adventures, and get to decide how those characters make it through their story. It's like taking an interactive role in a virtual comic book. Nevermind that Spider-Man, Batman and all the most popular comic heroes have games as well.
Games are also becoming much more customizable. Mass Effect develops your character according to choices you make along the way. Oblivion lets you run around and do whatever you want. A great day for gamers who like to craft their own experience will be when a game hits the market that can take in the gamer's input and design a unique gaming experience just for him or her. Can someone who knows how to code come up with such a program please? And when you do, let me know so I can put my old fashioned comic book abilities to good use.
Perhaps in my younger days I might have been interested in having a story version of Boogerman based on my style of play, but in 2010 wouldn't it be ten times cooler to have software that can read a comic book and create a game experience from it?
Comic books are a fading art form, but their creativity is not disappearing. It's merely being redirected into a medium that gives a lot more bang for... well, a lot more bucks.
I've been saying for a while that video games have become the comic books of this generation. My pals and I would ride our bikes down to the 7-11 to get candy and comics 25 years ago. At that time video games were Space Invaders, Pac-Man, Donkey Kong etc. They were great, classic games, but not much for story content.
The latest generation of video games play out like a movie, with almost photographic quality imagery and characters that really come to life especially when the voice acting is good. Gamers get to experience wonderfully imaginative and artfully produced adventures, and get to decide how those characters make it through their story. It's like taking an interactive role in a virtual comic book. Nevermind that Spider-Man, Batman and all the most popular comic heroes have games as well.
Games are also becoming much more customizable. Mass Effect develops your character according to choices you make along the way. Oblivion lets you run around and do whatever you want. A great day for gamers who like to craft their own experience will be when a game hits the market that can take in the gamer's input and design a unique gaming experience just for him or her. Can someone who knows how to code come up with such a program please? And when you do, let me know so I can put my old fashioned comic book abilities to good use.
Sunday, August 8, 2010
My new web site
I FINALLY redesigned my web site and published it as an online portfolio. Go look. Right now. I'm gonna try to update it with new sketches as close to daily as I can, if I don't let myself get too lazy about it. I hope you like what I got!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)