This year being both the 25th anniversary of The Legend of Zelda and the 20th anniversary of Sonic The Hedgehog, two franchises with very important significance to the gaming public, and to me, I thought it would be a good idea to do retrospectives on them here.
Then I realized that I could be much lazier and use this as an opportunity to look at why such an idea would be less-than-stellar.
While both Zelda and Sonic started as the cream of the gaming crop, they have diverged quite a bit over the years. Zelda is still recognized by the majority as an amazing series, while Sonic is regarded by the majority as pretty much a dead franchise, as Sonic 4, the most recent release and a return to 2D platforming, was regarded by many as a disappointment.
Now, as of this writing, Sonic Generations has not been released, but if every previous Sonic game since Adventure 2 for the freaking Dreamcast has taught me anything, it's not to get my hopes up. Yes, that's right. The last great Sonic game was on the system that killed Sega's console development. Think about that for a bit. That should tell you how little clout Sonic has anymore.
On the other hand, Zelda is a powerhouse. Look back at messageboards from the time the Wii's launch lineup was announced; odds are, you'll see comment after comment about people who were willing to shell out $200 for a system solely to play Twilight Princess. Which would cost them even more money. It is undeniable that Zelda moved more Wiis than most people would probably like to admit anymore. And yet, the Zelda formula has been relatively unchanged since Ocarina of Time. Admittedly, Ocarina of Time is largely considered the Citizen Kane of videogames, but if a director were to remake Citizen Kane over and over again, that director would probably be ridiculed as a one-trick-pony. Sure, it's a great trick, but it gets old after a while.
Point is, both Sonic and Zelda are examples of franchises that started out quite possibly much better than they are now (a point that even die-hard Sonic fans would probably readily concede). Hell, looking from a purely gameplay design standpoint, I'd say that the original Legend of Zelda is even better than the seminally popular game A Link To The Past. The original was a true adventure game, a game about learning from your mistakes and advancing through the world at your own pace, while later games in the franchise became more and more linear, relying more on dungeon layouts and puzzles than true exploration. Similarly, the older Sonic games were about blinding speed and bright visuals which showcased the power of the Sega Genesis. But as Sonic got older, he's gotten slower, to the point where half of a recent game was a God of War clone at a lethargic pace.
And that's why it's not such a great idea to highlight the past of these two franchises; doing so highlights the growing weakness of the recent games and casts a grim shadow over the future of the series. If the trends continue, we might even end up with a Zelda racing game (no, it would not be a good idea, stop it fanboys!). It's hard to even imagine how Sonic could sink any lower at this point, though...
And that's not a point of nerd rage for me, it's just sad.
Thursday, July 7, 2011
Tuesday, May 31, 2011
DC, What The Hell.
As you can read here, DC comics is planning to reboot their entire comics universe, using the reboot to improve their digital distribution. This could be considered an awesome idea. Except for one thing.
They've done it before. Three times.
Besides, there are a ton of awesome ongoing stories in the DCU right now. There's the whole Brightest Day thing going on which is a really cool concept worth exploring (SparkNotes version: White Lanterns with the power of life created from various DC heroes). And there's Batman, Inc. (Batmen get franchised out to world cities and trained by Bruce Wayne), not to mention the awesome Dick Grayson as Batman/Damian Wayne as Robin thing.
And there's all of the less-popular, but still really cool things that probably won't get more than a cursory mention, such as Gail Simone's Birds Of Prey, or the Teen Titans.
Also, if you look at a similar reboot/updated universe done by Marvel, the Ultimates universe...you can see that it's less-than-encouraging. It itself got rebooted in ten years during the Ultimatum event. Watch the entire 3 part review. Yeah.
Of course, only time will tell whether this reboot will be a good or bad thing. Perhaps it will result in fresh, exciting stories while still remaining true to the basic character concepts that were originally put forward. But experience, and the fact that negativity is a little more entertaining than positivity, tells me otherwise.
They've done it before. Three times.
Besides, there are a ton of awesome ongoing stories in the DCU right now. There's the whole Brightest Day thing going on which is a really cool concept worth exploring (SparkNotes version: White Lanterns with the power of life created from various DC heroes). And there's Batman, Inc. (Batmen get franchised out to world cities and trained by Bruce Wayne), not to mention the awesome Dick Grayson as Batman/Damian Wayne as Robin thing.
And there's all of the less-popular, but still really cool things that probably won't get more than a cursory mention, such as Gail Simone's Birds Of Prey, or the Teen Titans.
Also, if you look at a similar reboot/updated universe done by Marvel, the Ultimates universe...you can see that it's less-than-encouraging. It itself got rebooted in ten years during the Ultimatum event. Watch the entire 3 part review. Yeah.
Of course, only time will tell whether this reboot will be a good or bad thing. Perhaps it will result in fresh, exciting stories while still remaining true to the basic character concepts that were originally put forward. But experience, and the fact that negativity is a little more entertaining than positivity, tells me otherwise.
Tuesday, May 10, 2011
Games As Art
Read the inspiration for today's rant here
Okay, so as of May ninth, 2011, video games are officially recognized as art by the US government. So long as the games are distributed for free. This helps...who, exactly?
Don't get me wrong, I would love it if games were recognized as a legitimate art form. But, see, the thing is, is that games are like movies, in that they require many people to make them and those people need to eat.
Honestly, why even have that stipulation? Is it true of any other art form? Here's a hint: NO, IT ISN'T BECAUSE THAT WOULD BE LUDICROUS. Paintings are regularly sold to private collectors. Does that mean that those paintings are not art? Has Citizen Kane been made available for free to every member of the USA who wants it? And, last I checked, I still have to pay for books like The Odyssey.
Of course, the case could be made that one could go to a museum to see a painting or sculpture. However, while this is true, people usually have to pay money to get into a museum. Also, there is a definite shortage of museums dedicated to letting people play various artistic video games.
Why not just say, "Here, have a grant for $200,000 to help you make your awesome artistic game, if you make it back you can pay us back from the profits, if not, then your contribution to art is enough payback."
Would that be so hard? Besides, odds are people would buy any truly artistic game. Look at Shadow of the Colossus. Look at Bioshock. Hell, people are still buying and playing Myst. Myst!
Okay, so as of May ninth, 2011, video games are officially recognized as art by the US government. So long as the games are distributed for free. This helps...who, exactly?
Don't get me wrong, I would love it if games were recognized as a legitimate art form. But, see, the thing is, is that games are like movies, in that they require many people to make them and those people need to eat.
Honestly, why even have that stipulation? Is it true of any other art form? Here's a hint: NO, IT ISN'T BECAUSE THAT WOULD BE LUDICROUS. Paintings are regularly sold to private collectors. Does that mean that those paintings are not art? Has Citizen Kane been made available for free to every member of the USA who wants it? And, last I checked, I still have to pay for books like The Odyssey.
Of course, the case could be made that one could go to a museum to see a painting or sculpture. However, while this is true, people usually have to pay money to get into a museum. Also, there is a definite shortage of museums dedicated to letting people play various artistic video games.
Why not just say, "Here, have a grant for $200,000 to help you make your awesome artistic game, if you make it back you can pay us back from the profits, if not, then your contribution to art is enough payback."
Would that be so hard? Besides, odds are people would buy any truly artistic game. Look at Shadow of the Colossus. Look at Bioshock. Hell, people are still buying and playing Myst. Myst!
Tuesday, May 3, 2011
Sony Thinks You Are Dumb
OK, so by now we should all know about what happened with the PlayStation Network, right? How it got hacked into and every single user's personal info got stolen?
Good, because I don't want to talk about all of that here; here, I want to focus on one thing. Sony apparently thinks every one of their customers is a mindless sheep.
Here's a quote: "These illegal attacks obviously highlight the widespread problem with cybersecurity. We take the security of our consumers' information very seriously and are committed to helping our consumers protect their personal data." That was Kaz Hirai, a Sony rep who spoke at a press conference on the morning of May 2nd. Here's the thing: he said that Sony expects you to believe that they take the security of their customer's info "very seriously."
If that were true, sir, then why did you store their passwords in unencrypted servers? Why do the internet equivalent of writing down all of the passwords and post-it noting them to your computer monitor? That doesn't sound like something someone would do if they were taking security "very seriously."
Guys, I want you to know something important at this point in the discussion: I have nothing against Sony, or the Play Station brand. The PSX and PS2 were two of the best consoles in the history of gaming, IMO. They had amazing catalogs of games, including Final Fantasy VII, Legend of Dragoon, Brave Fencer Musashi, Kingdom Hearts, Resident Evil, Silent Hill, etc. But this corporate bullshitting is really pissing me off. Like, really.
Come on, Sony, what next? Are you going to take a DualShock and try to rape the asshole of all of your customers with it, then claim that "the security of their rectal area is very important" to you? Just admit you made a giant goof and move on. I'm sure that people will gladly continue to buy your products. Especially if you don't insult their intelligence first.
Good, because I don't want to talk about all of that here; here, I want to focus on one thing. Sony apparently thinks every one of their customers is a mindless sheep.
Here's a quote: "These illegal attacks obviously highlight the widespread problem with cybersecurity. We take the security of our consumers' information very seriously and are committed to helping our consumers protect their personal data." That was Kaz Hirai, a Sony rep who spoke at a press conference on the morning of May 2nd. Here's the thing: he said that Sony expects you to believe that they take the security of their customer's info "very seriously."
If that were true, sir, then why did you store their passwords in unencrypted servers? Why do the internet equivalent of writing down all of the passwords and post-it noting them to your computer monitor? That doesn't sound like something someone would do if they were taking security "very seriously."
Guys, I want you to know something important at this point in the discussion: I have nothing against Sony, or the Play Station brand. The PSX and PS2 were two of the best consoles in the history of gaming, IMO. They had amazing catalogs of games, including Final Fantasy VII, Legend of Dragoon, Brave Fencer Musashi, Kingdom Hearts, Resident Evil, Silent Hill, etc. But this corporate bullshitting is really pissing me off. Like, really.
Come on, Sony, what next? Are you going to take a DualShock and try to rape the asshole of all of your customers with it, then claim that "the security of their rectal area is very important" to you? Just admit you made a giant goof and move on. I'm sure that people will gladly continue to buy your products. Especially if you don't insult their intelligence first.
Monday, April 18, 2011
I Hate You, General Game-Buying Public.
You know why I hate you? You are killing one of my favorite genres, the JRPG. All because you can't get enough of the same two games, over and over again. Fucking Halo and Modern Warfare. Sure, Halo was a great game, and yes, Modern Warfare was also a great game. But the market is over saturated. It seems like every month we get a new clone of one or the other. Sometimes they don't even bother changing the story! Modern Warfare 2 was about a Russian invasion of the United States. On March 15 of this year, we got Homefront. You know what that game was about? North Korea invading the United States! And yet you keep paying upwards of $60 for the same game. That's why I can't really blame developers for this one. Cloning Halo or Modern Warfare is like a license to print money in this industry. Why shouldn't they do it? They have mouths to feed, after all. No, the blame is squarely on you, John Q. Public.
It really is too bad that the JRPG is a dying breed. Consider all of the classic JRPGs that helped shape many gamers' experiences; Final Fantasy II (or IV, if you're being picky), Dragon Quest, Chrono Trigger, etc. And then consider the heyday of JRPGs which held titles like FFVII, Legend of Dragoon, Skies of Arcadia, or Chrono Cross. It used to be that a JRPG was a safe bet for an investment of your saved up allowance money, as it would provide hours upon hours of entertainment and flashy visuals (for the ADD among us). But now Final Fantasy is pretty much dead, Dragon Quest has been shunted to portables, and the last decent console JRPG came out four years ago (Blue Dragon). Game developers who have tried making JRPGs for Wii have completely missed the target as to what would make it awesome, i.e., easy menu navigation, opting instead to throw in random waving gameplay mechanics that were old by the third week the system was on shelves thanks to Wii Sports. This needs to be fixed, but I don't know who can do it, ever since Squaresoft bought out Enix. The lack of serious competition in the market has driven the whole genre down. If I had the resources, I'd honestly put them to use in fighting this trend, but I don't, and so, as one who loves the genre, I despair for its future. Of course, there's always the portable JRPG, where Dragon Quest has moved to, where Pokemon resides, and where one of my favorite trilogies of all time, Golden Sun was born. But a portable can never match the epicness of a console game. It's a limitation of the system. Sure, summoning Judgement on Golden Sun is awesome, but compared to, say, Knights of the Round from FFVII, it's pretty pathetic just by virtue of the smaller screen. Imagine what could be done just by putting Golden Sun on a console. But it won't happen, because you, John Q. Public, have told the game industry that you don't want it to happen. You seem to think that JRPGs belong on portables, and need to stay there, as if it's some kind of game ghetto. And it's sad. It's really, really sad.
Of course, that won't stop anyone from developing yet another FPS, which will either be a Halo clone or a MW clone. Have you seen the trailer for Battlefield 3? Apparently you should buy it, because, y'know, graphics!
It really is too bad that the JRPG is a dying breed. Consider all of the classic JRPGs that helped shape many gamers' experiences; Final Fantasy II (or IV, if you're being picky), Dragon Quest, Chrono Trigger, etc. And then consider the heyday of JRPGs which held titles like FFVII, Legend of Dragoon, Skies of Arcadia, or Chrono Cross. It used to be that a JRPG was a safe bet for an investment of your saved up allowance money, as it would provide hours upon hours of entertainment and flashy visuals (for the ADD among us). But now Final Fantasy is pretty much dead, Dragon Quest has been shunted to portables, and the last decent console JRPG came out four years ago (Blue Dragon). Game developers who have tried making JRPGs for Wii have completely missed the target as to what would make it awesome, i.e., easy menu navigation, opting instead to throw in random waving gameplay mechanics that were old by the third week the system was on shelves thanks to Wii Sports. This needs to be fixed, but I don't know who can do it, ever since Squaresoft bought out Enix. The lack of serious competition in the market has driven the whole genre down. If I had the resources, I'd honestly put them to use in fighting this trend, but I don't, and so, as one who loves the genre, I despair for its future. Of course, there's always the portable JRPG, where Dragon Quest has moved to, where Pokemon resides, and where one of my favorite trilogies of all time, Golden Sun was born. But a portable can never match the epicness of a console game. It's a limitation of the system. Sure, summoning Judgement on Golden Sun is awesome, but compared to, say, Knights of the Round from FFVII, it's pretty pathetic just by virtue of the smaller screen. Imagine what could be done just by putting Golden Sun on a console. But it won't happen, because you, John Q. Public, have told the game industry that you don't want it to happen. You seem to think that JRPGs belong on portables, and need to stay there, as if it's some kind of game ghetto. And it's sad. It's really, really sad.
Of course, that won't stop anyone from developing yet another FPS, which will either be a Halo clone or a MW clone. Have you seen the trailer for Battlefield 3? Apparently you should buy it, because, y'know, graphics!
Monday, March 14, 2011
Holy Ignorance, Batman!
It has come to my attention that one of my childhood heroes is somewhat less than wildly popular. I am referring, of course, to Robin. Batman's sidekick. People seem to think that he's fairly worthless, lame, pointless, and also a homosexual. And, of course, these people know next-to-nothing about the character. Well, guess what? It's time to bring out the education sticks, and beat people until they bleed knowledge. All one of you who will read this.
First of all, Robin isn't really someone you can talk about in terms of one character. Four different characters have worn the Robin costume alongside a Batman, and as such each one needs to be addressed separately.
Robin number one was Dick Grayson. The one everyone probably thinks about when they think of Robin. This was the child acrobat whose parents were killed by a gangster, and who was adopted as a ward by Bruce Wayne. This Robin was essentially created as an avatar for young boys so that they could pretend to go with Batman on his adventures. Eventually, he became a foil for Batman's grim seriousness, and developed as a character in his own right. He was trained by Bruce Wayne from basically the age of 12 in science, detective skills, martial arts, and gadgetry. Of course, he'd been training in acrobatics pretty much since birth, so that saved time. He later left to become Nightwing, because he grew up, and had the balls to stand up to BATMAN and make his own way in the world. When Bruce Wayne was presumed dead after a confrontation with Darkseid, he took up the mantle of Batman, and even after Bruce returned, was recognized as pretty much equal to the original Batman. He's a badass because not only did he have the set of cast-iron testicles to tell Batman off, he eventually became Batman.
Robin number two was Jason Todd. This one was...a little special. Batman caught him trying to steal the rims off the FREAKING BATMOBILE and, impressed with his courage, took Todd under his wing. (heh.) Jason Todd took the whole crime-fighting deal as a big game, which ultimately led to the Joker bashing his head in with a crowbar. Violently. He was resurrected in a Lazarus Pit (quasi-magical, semi-naturally-occurring pits underground filled with a liquid which has the power to revive the dead) and went insane. He's currently a masked vigilante who goes by the name of Red Hood, and he uses guns, forsaking Batman's One Rule (never to kill). His character is frequently used as a foil for Dick Grayson's Batman, as kind of an anti-Batman. Not in the sense of a criminal Batman, more like a Batman who went over the line. Not quite as skilled as the first, but extremely close. The only canon Robin who had hair with a color other than black, he was a redhead. He's a badass because, as mentioned above, he tried to steal the rims off of Batman's car. Who has the balls to do that? Also notable: His death was the result of a DC phone-in poll. He could have lived, if he had been more popular.
Robin number three was Tim Drake. This one was an orphan who became Robin after he deduced, on his own, the identity of Batman. Tim Drake took to being Robin like a duck takes to water, and Batman originally intended for him to take over if Wayne ever retired. This is the Robin who was in the TV adaptation of the Teen Titans, which makes him out to be basically unstoppable. Tim Drake was legally adopted as Bruce Wayne's son, so when Bruce was presumed dead, he took over running Wayne Enterprises. He was the first to suspect that Bruce Wayne wasn't really dead, and dropped his Robin persona to investigate. He currently goes by the name Red Robin, which is kinda lame if you think about it, since Nightwing was available, but he never wanted to quit being Robin in the first place, so it makes sense. He's a badass because he figured out ON HIS OWN that Batman was Bruce Wayne, he was able to hold his own against Jason Todd after Bruce disappeared, and he fought in better sync with Batman than any Robin previous. Besides, he's probably better at staff fighting than Donatello of the Ninja Turtles.
The fourth and current Robin is Damian Wayne, the illegitimate child of Bruce Wayne and Talia Al Ghul (who runs an international organization of ninjas. No lie. She's the daughter of Liam Neeson's character in Batman Begins). Damian became Robin after his father disappeared, leaving his entire upbringing and birthright to do so. This lead to being disowned by his mother. He was taught basically how to be a ninja from birth, so there's that. Unfortunately, he was also instilled in his upbringing with a snobbish, superior attitude which leads to constant friction between him and pretty much EVERY OTHER SUPERHERO. Although, he is getting better with Dick Grayson's Batman. Speaking of, he also functions as a foil to Grayson as Batman as the serious partner, to Batman's general wisecracking, reversing the traditional roles. He's also probably the weakest among the Robins as a detective. He's the only Robin who wasn't the leader of the Teen Titans as soon as he joined. He's a badass because he can legitimately fight Batman blindfolded, as previously mentioned he's a fraking NINJA, and rather than having his life improved by becoming Robin, he actually gave something up for it.
SO, now that you have knowledge of who each Robin is, and why they are each awesome, if I catch you talking shit again, you no longer have the excuse of ignorance. Since each Robin is nearly as awesome as Batman, if you think Batman is awesome, you must necessarily think that Robin is awesome. If you don't, you are just an idiot.
If you don't think Batman is awesome, then you have no conception of what awesome is. There is probably no help for you. You can go ahead and continue your life fail now. Although I'm not sure why you read this far. Freak...
First of all, Robin isn't really someone you can talk about in terms of one character. Four different characters have worn the Robin costume alongside a Batman, and as such each one needs to be addressed separately.
Robin number one was Dick Grayson. The one everyone probably thinks about when they think of Robin. This was the child acrobat whose parents were killed by a gangster, and who was adopted as a ward by Bruce Wayne. This Robin was essentially created as an avatar for young boys so that they could pretend to go with Batman on his adventures. Eventually, he became a foil for Batman's grim seriousness, and developed as a character in his own right. He was trained by Bruce Wayne from basically the age of 12 in science, detective skills, martial arts, and gadgetry. Of course, he'd been training in acrobatics pretty much since birth, so that saved time. He later left to become Nightwing, because he grew up, and had the balls to stand up to BATMAN and make his own way in the world. When Bruce Wayne was presumed dead after a confrontation with Darkseid, he took up the mantle of Batman, and even after Bruce returned, was recognized as pretty much equal to the original Batman. He's a badass because not only did he have the set of cast-iron testicles to tell Batman off, he eventually became Batman.
Robin number two was Jason Todd. This one was...a little special. Batman caught him trying to steal the rims off the FREAKING BATMOBILE and, impressed with his courage, took Todd under his wing. (heh.) Jason Todd took the whole crime-fighting deal as a big game, which ultimately led to the Joker bashing his head in with a crowbar. Violently. He was resurrected in a Lazarus Pit (quasi-magical, semi-naturally-occurring pits underground filled with a liquid which has the power to revive the dead) and went insane. He's currently a masked vigilante who goes by the name of Red Hood, and he uses guns, forsaking Batman's One Rule (never to kill). His character is frequently used as a foil for Dick Grayson's Batman, as kind of an anti-Batman. Not in the sense of a criminal Batman, more like a Batman who went over the line. Not quite as skilled as the first, but extremely close. The only canon Robin who had hair with a color other than black, he was a redhead. He's a badass because, as mentioned above, he tried to steal the rims off of Batman's car. Who has the balls to do that? Also notable: His death was the result of a DC phone-in poll. He could have lived, if he had been more popular.
Robin number three was Tim Drake. This one was an orphan who became Robin after he deduced, on his own, the identity of Batman. Tim Drake took to being Robin like a duck takes to water, and Batman originally intended for him to take over if Wayne ever retired. This is the Robin who was in the TV adaptation of the Teen Titans, which makes him out to be basically unstoppable. Tim Drake was legally adopted as Bruce Wayne's son, so when Bruce was presumed dead, he took over running Wayne Enterprises. He was the first to suspect that Bruce Wayne wasn't really dead, and dropped his Robin persona to investigate. He currently goes by the name Red Robin, which is kinda lame if you think about it, since Nightwing was available, but he never wanted to quit being Robin in the first place, so it makes sense. He's a badass because he figured out ON HIS OWN that Batman was Bruce Wayne, he was able to hold his own against Jason Todd after Bruce disappeared, and he fought in better sync with Batman than any Robin previous. Besides, he's probably better at staff fighting than Donatello of the Ninja Turtles.
The fourth and current Robin is Damian Wayne, the illegitimate child of Bruce Wayne and Talia Al Ghul (who runs an international organization of ninjas. No lie. She's the daughter of Liam Neeson's character in Batman Begins). Damian became Robin after his father disappeared, leaving his entire upbringing and birthright to do so. This lead to being disowned by his mother. He was taught basically how to be a ninja from birth, so there's that. Unfortunately, he was also instilled in his upbringing with a snobbish, superior attitude which leads to constant friction between him and pretty much EVERY OTHER SUPERHERO. Although, he is getting better with Dick Grayson's Batman. Speaking of, he also functions as a foil to Grayson as Batman as the serious partner, to Batman's general wisecracking, reversing the traditional roles. He's also probably the weakest among the Robins as a detective. He's the only Robin who wasn't the leader of the Teen Titans as soon as he joined. He's a badass because he can legitimately fight Batman blindfolded, as previously mentioned he's a fraking NINJA, and rather than having his life improved by becoming Robin, he actually gave something up for it.
SO, now that you have knowledge of who each Robin is, and why they are each awesome, if I catch you talking shit again, you no longer have the excuse of ignorance. Since each Robin is nearly as awesome as Batman, if you think Batman is awesome, you must necessarily think that Robin is awesome. If you don't, you are just an idiot.
If you don't think Batman is awesome, then you have no conception of what awesome is. There is probably no help for you. You can go ahead and continue your life fail now. Although I'm not sure why you read this far. Freak...
Monday, February 28, 2011
Because Disney Just Didn't Do It Justice, Apparently.
OK, so there's this new movie coming out, called "Beastly." The premise is that some pretty boy is too conceited for his own good, so he gets cursed with ugliness until he can find someone to love him for his personality. The catch is that if he doesn't do it within a year he stays ugly forever.
Sound familiar? It fucking should; it's the same goddamn story as "Beauty And The Beast," which was this awesome animated Disney movie with some pretty sweet songs and a talking French candelabra. Except that there are two things wrong with it. First, this movie has no sweet songs, indeed, it will probably have no real musical moments like the kick-ass "Be My Guest" number because as far as I can tell, it is not a musical. Second, there is no talking furniture, the part of the movie that I liked most when I first saw it as a younger kid. Seriously, no songs and no talking furniture in a Beauty and the Beast movie? How could this get any worse?
Oh. That's how. The "beast" is ugly just because he's bald and has some tattoos. Some really, really sweet tattoos. Like, seriously, if I could, I would totally get the ink this guy's rocking.
Well, doesn't that just suck for him?
Luckily, the trailer leaves us with no sense of suspense at all as to whether he finds someone. Vanessa Hudgens is there to save the day and look hot, and she's all out of...well, no, she isn't out of hot, but she saves the day anyway. I would have given a spoiler alert on that one, but since watching the trailer pretty much tells you all of that anyway, I refused. Sorry.
Why was this movie made? What purpose does it serve? What questions does it seek to ask? What is the artistic message being conveyed? And how do I meet a creepy witch lady who makes me look freaking awesome? I mean seriously, does this movie even have a goddamn point or does it exist for the sole purpose of making adolescent girls become sexually excited, and cashing in a little late on the popularity of crap like Twilight?
I'm willing to bet it's that last one.
Sound familiar? It fucking should; it's the same goddamn story as "Beauty And The Beast," which was this awesome animated Disney movie with some pretty sweet songs and a talking French candelabra. Except that there are two things wrong with it. First, this movie has no sweet songs, indeed, it will probably have no real musical moments like the kick-ass "Be My Guest" number because as far as I can tell, it is not a musical. Second, there is no talking furniture, the part of the movie that I liked most when I first saw it as a younger kid. Seriously, no songs and no talking furniture in a Beauty and the Beast movie? How could this get any worse?
Oh. That's how. The "beast" is ugly just because he's bald and has some tattoos. Some really, really sweet tattoos. Like, seriously, if I could, I would totally get the ink this guy's rocking.
Well, doesn't that just suck for him?
Luckily, the trailer leaves us with no sense of suspense at all as to whether he finds someone. Vanessa Hudgens is there to save the day and look hot, and she's all out of...well, no, she isn't out of hot, but she saves the day anyway. I would have given a spoiler alert on that one, but since watching the trailer pretty much tells you all of that anyway, I refused. Sorry.
Why was this movie made? What purpose does it serve? What questions does it seek to ask? What is the artistic message being conveyed? And how do I meet a creepy witch lady who makes me look freaking awesome? I mean seriously, does this movie even have a goddamn point or does it exist for the sole purpose of making adolescent girls become sexually excited, and cashing in a little late on the popularity of crap like Twilight?
I'm willing to bet it's that last one.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)