I just learned about the concept of guanxi (关系) in Chinese culture and knowledge of it plus the whole concept of saving/giving face in Asian cultures is making a lot of behaviors in Asian culture make a bit more sense. It also adds fuel to my crazy conspiracy theory about the Showplace (AMC) movie theater in Westfield Valley Fair. First, let's talk about guanxi, In Chinese culture there is something called guanxi which is basically the concept of having important working relationships and trust with people. If you have good guanxi you are well connected, bad guanxi you are not. This is not unique to China - society in general places a lot of importance on networking - but China's sometimes loose rule of law apparently means that guanxi has a big effect. One thing that happens is businesses will often offer exclusive lounges and clubs to their members in order to give them an opportunity to up their guanxi. (I'm actually not even sure how to use guanxi in a sentence, so any or all of this may be a gross misunderstanding of guanxi) Now back to the theater. This Showplace ICON theater has an oddly conspicuous stratification between the plebeian bottom floor tickets and the exclusive top floor tickets that grant access to a bar and lounge. I noticed the design immediately when the theater opened to the public recently. It would be hard to miss! The luxurious glass encased steps to the second floor lounge are the most prominent design feature of the whole place. AMC is Chinese owned, and there is a lot of Chinese culture in Silicon Valley, mostly due to many Chinese immigrants and nationals in the area as well as a general push toward cosmopolitan globalization. When I saw the peculiar layout of this theater, it immediately struck me as being somehow Chinese in nature. To be clear, I was not unnerved or upset. I was curious why this theater, which seemed to be a normal theater aside from its second story, felt sort of Chinese. Well what do you know, owing to guanxi, it is apparently not uncommon for businesses in China to offer exclusive lounges for their customers to schmooze it up in luxury and get in some good networking. This movie theater is CLEARLY designed just for that. Now, I would not say this is necessarily a bad thing. It's nice to pay a couple extra bucks for some extra luxury every so often. However, it does come off as anathema to the more egalitarian designs I've come to expect from American movie theaters, with all seats and customers' tickets being treated essentially equally. While I still don't think it is all down to the mere fact that this theater's design may have been influenced by the company's Chinese owners' culture, to be honest, I am vaguely unsettled. I suppose it is vaguely unsettling for any person to be exposed to any new culture, especially when they aren't expecting it. Still, America is all about adopting aspects of world culture, although I suppose whether this sort of conspicuous social stratification will catch on is anyone's guess. I, for one, am a fan of subtle luxury, billionaires who drive Hondas, and general restraint and moderation as a virtue. I don't really like seeing businesses draw attention to the differences in the wealth of their customers (airlines and their different seating options ranging from first class to economy come to mind) and I don't think that practice does anything to ease cross-class resentment. However, from my experience playing in and attending orchestra concerts, I also can appreciate the joys of dressing up and going out to an extravagant, expensive, and luxurious show. What I am not sure about is whether mixing the customer stratification of airlines with the egalitarian nature of American movie theaters, is a good idea; in general the whole practice of separating customers into different wealth-based classes really seems like a concept straight out of the era of the Titanic. I've heard that movie theaters are struggling to attract customers as home streaming becomes more and more attractive. Perhaps this movie theater's design is just some guy's idea of a way to attract more people. Perhaps it has nothing to do with Chinese influence and guanxi. Or maybe... the CCP has a secret plan to take over American movie theaters in order to indoctrinate the American people through cinema and this theater's design is just the tip of the iceberg. There's probably a way to tie this post up nicely by linking that iceberg part with the Titanic part I mentioned before, but it's late and I've got work to do. So instead here's the recent trailer for Death Stranding, which is so cinematic , it might as well be shown in theaters:
Not a bad poster, eh? Cool Millennium Falcon motif!
First, a spoiler-free short review:
Solo: A Star Wars Story is great modern western with vibrant and interesting characters and a rich atmosphere. It shows that there is a lot left in Star Wars beyond rehashing and remixing the original trilogy to make sequels. I particularly enjoyed the way Han, Lando, and Chewie all feel like their original characters, but are still unique enough in this story to be exciting new characters without requiring the audience to already know or like the Han, Lando, and Chewie from the original trilogy. This isn't one of those movies where it ends too soon, doesn't accomplish much, and leaves you wanting more in all the wrong ways, Solo works well as a standalone film while also creating intrigue for this new corner of the Star Wars galaxy, which I for one hope will be explored in future films. I definitely recommend that anyone and particularly Star Wars or western fans see Solo: A Star Wars Story.
And now, a full review:
Boy these writers sure are interested in fleshing out how fuel works in the Star Wars universe, huh? In The Last Jedi, the plot revolves around the last Resistance warship slowly running out of fuel as it flees the First Order, which is a painfully boring plot point in the actual movie and also the first time in the saga that these starships, which can fly all over the galaxy, suddenly and conveniently for the film's writers are shown to be able to run out of fuel like a ship at sea.
I'm not saying this is a dumb plot point. I actually think it makes a lot of sense and could have been handled a lot better in The Last Jedi. In fact, I'm sure it could have, because the plot of Solo: A Star Wars Story also revolves around starship fuel, this time as a way to get rich and pay off some debts. The Last Jedi introduces starship fuel as a new sci-fi concept blankly and bores the viewer by dragging the pacing of the movie to a crawl whenever the need to save the Resistance because Princess Leia forgot to fill up their cruiser at the nearest space-gas-station is brought up. Solo, on the other hand, handles fuel much more like a Star Wars movie should, with a sense of mystery and wonder befitting a sci-fi-fantasy story, like the way the hyperdrives of the ships in Star Wars aren't explained as they would be in an episode of Star Trek; they're simply a part of the magic of the world.
I'm waxing on about this fuel thing because it's a clear point of comparison between the new sequel trilogy and Solo. Whereas the sequel trilogy all but fails to capture the magic of the original Star Wars movies, and only BARELY manages to by having some of the original cast play undead versions of their characters, Solo captures the magic of Star Wars in the same way George Lucas' films did in the first place: by being a great movie on its own while paying homage to the genres Star Wars grew out of.
I really enjoyed Solo. I thought there was a great balance of fan service and actual movie meat. For example, Han gets the "Solo" part of his name early in the film. A lot of people are pointing to this as an example of unnecessary fan service. I saw it as clever writing that narratively tied the title of the film to a moment that both acts as a nod to fans recognition of the character, Han Solo, and serves the plot in at least a small way. Most of the minor references to other Star Wars things were handled in the same way, like how the Millennium Falcon loses its escape pod and gets the iconic silhouette fans recognize.
Those same naysayer fans that are cynical about the Solo name origin seem to also be the ones saying Rogue One was terrible, so clearly we won't agree on a lot of things. I thought Rogue One was great, and Solo executes the idea of an anthology or Star Wars Story film at least as well if not better. Both Solo and Rogue One feel like new original Star Wars movies without borrowing massive storytelling chunks from previous films (*cough* all of The Force Awakens *cough*). However, while Rogue One felt like it had the same epic space opera tone of the other Star Wars films, Solo is more constrained and told a smaller story.
One last point of comparison betweenthe two Star Wars Story films is their soundtracks. Solo's soundtrack certainly fit the movie, but I haven't found myself lost in thought as I listen to the memory of it in my mind, unlike Rogue One and all the other Star Wars films, where music is such a large part of the storytelling.
The whole sequence at the end of Rogue One, like a lot of great moments in the Star Wars movies, plays out like an opera (it is a "space opera" after all) with the music being as central to the progression of the plot's emotional arc as the dialogue or acting. Still, I think Solo's soundtrack might grow on me upon further viewings.
The aspect of Solo I most enjoyed, however, was the exploration of the crime world of the Star Wars universe. There have always been bits in Star Wars movies involving assassins, bounty hunters, and crime bosses, but never has an entire story been told within the realm of the sort of "space wild west" that exists in this galaxy.
Woody Harrelson's character, Beckett, with his accent and clear western-inspired everything does a lot of the work making the movie feel like it could be a sci-fi remake of a spaghetti western. There are even a couple of good old fashioned standoffs, a couple of which involve the film's weakest character, Enfys Nest.
Oh boy.
Just that name is sloppy. What the heck kind of name is Enfys Nest? There are plenty of names like it already in Star Wars cannon like Boba Fett, Obi-Wan, Boss Nass, etc. and that's probably why it feels so much like the kind of derivative name a 16-year-old would come up with for an original Star Wars character. Who knows, maybe it's direct from George Lucas, I'd change my tone if it were, but it still wouldn't help the character herself.
Enfys Nest represents everything that's wrong with modern Star Wars. She is the evil marauder fighting our heroes throughout the film. She's vaguely tribal, part of the downtrodden natives of somewhere of course, she's got a stupid bo staff of course, and of course she's a little girl... a regular little girl, not a jedi or anything, and she still can lead a band of cutthroat marauders. So of course when this is all revealed near the end of the movie it pulls you right out it. Everything leading up to that moment has been legit. The stakes felt real. The bad guys seemed menacing and deadly. The risks the heroes took and challenges they faced seemed outlandish but reasonable. And then this Boba Fett-looking marauder takes off her helmet to reveal that she's a literal Disney character talking about how her murderous marauders are actually part of the rebellion and are saving native people from the real evil gangsters. It comes completely out of nowhere, drags the movie to a halt, and is utterly stupid.
Her moment in the film near the end almost ruined the entire thing for me and I'm so glad there were three really well done bits after it before the end of the film so I could just try to forget that she was even a thing in the movie. I'm just way past skepticism and cynicism about the stereotypical badass with a bo staff is revealed to actually be a little girl trope. When her obviously shoehorned-in bit near the end of the film comes up where she talks about her oppressed people and the rebellion with a line that's more or less "hey idiot 6-year-olds in the audience, remember the REBELLION™!?" I basically cringed so hard I turned my face inside out and I actually audibly groaned in the theater. This bullshit needs to be relegated to the Disney channel where it belongs, not here in an otherwise good space-heist-western Star Wars movie.
The only other part of Solo that made me make any noises (though these were out of joy not revulsion) was the surprise reveal at the end that the boss of the big baddie of this film, Dryden Vos, is actual none other than Darth Maul! Actually, at this point he's formerly Darth, now just Maul, but HOLY CRAP! At the end, Qi'ra, played by Emilia Clarke, contacts someone via the ol' glitchy Star Wars hologram and I immediately recognized the hooded figure by his voice and unmistakable robot legs. Interestingly enough, Maul is actually being voiced by Sam Witwer, who voiced him in The Clone Wars and Rebels, but acted by Ray Park, who played Maul in The Phantom Menace.
I'm so glad they're integrating Maul and using both actors from both versions of the character. Not only is Maul a great character that definitely deserves some more screen time, but his inclusion and the promise of seeing more of him in the future films teased at the end of Solo give me hope that Disney might really make the most of more underused Star Wars characters and characters that deserve to be seen in another movie like Obi-Wan and Darth Vader.
Imagine how great a Star Wars film about Obi-Wan and Darth Vader would be. I'm imagining a story where Darth Vader is off killing jedi remnants and finds a hint that Obi-Wan survives so he's pursing leads to the end and sends a bounty hunter like Boba Fett to find Obi-Wan who is doing some cool space-cowboy-jedi-ronin-western stuff on Tatooine. In fact, at the end of Solo, Han and Chewie are headed to Tatooine for a job, so maybe my dream movie with Darth Vader, Obi-Wan, and Boba Fett will finally be made in some way. After all, the Boba Fett movie was just recently confirmed to be in development.
Overall, I really enjoyed Solo: A Star Wars Story. It has me excited to see more of young Han Solo and other Star Wars characters from this newly explored realm of the galaxy. Its success along with Rogue One make me wish that Disney had started off this new era of Star Wars films with some of these spin-off films before diving into making a new trilogy. Perhaps a new trilogy will be spawned from this film though, and you can bet I'll be there on opening night to see any of those movies.
You want a comprehensive score? I give Solo: A Star Wars Story an 8 out of 10. That's tied with Rogue One, definitely better than The Last Jedi (7.5), yet a long way off from the greatest Star Wars films, A New Hope, The Empire Strikes Back, and Revenge of the Sith, all of which I say are 10 out of 10.
Here's a trailer too:
actually i just rewatched the trailer for solo and oh my god, movie trailers are so bad these days. having seen the film, the trailer basically spoils the whole thing and is playing loud stupid epic trailer music the whole time. i kid you not, every trailer for every movie previewed before i saw solo today did the same thing, this is ridiculous. hopefully there's a resurgence of good trailers sometime soon. so, to convey some amount of my frustration, here's a really funny youtube video that has been ruined by being blocked by disney:
Listen, the title of this post is bad, I'll admit it. I had a post I was working on called PS5 Prognostications, XBox Two Expectations but I just didn't have enough to write it and we can't keep expecting me to come up with titles that good.
Today's topic is Mexican food, which, if you are an alive human being living in anything but the most extreme levels of poverty or isolation, you have likely tried and love. I haven't made a serious effort to research this, but I'm pretty sure that there exists no human in the world who has ever tried Mexican food and not liked it.
I'll admit, I'm not a food expert; I'm not even a Mexican food expert. However, I am capable of running an experiment right here, on myself.
Behold the following images:
What do all of these images have in common besides the fact that they all depict delicious Mexican food? It's the effect they have on my stomach.
Having spent the past 2 minutes procuring these images from the web and inserting them into this post, I have become EXTREMELY hungry for Mexican food. I'm honestly unsure why I'm even keeping up this charade that this post is anything but a way for me to kill time until it's not 4PM and more like 5 or 6PM when it's a more reasonable time to eat dinner.
Yes, I'm sorry, you have been duped. This isn't actually a post worth reading at all, I'm just here to ramble on about how much I like Mexican food.
Anyways, I'm planning on eating alone. It's no big deal, when you're single you tend to eat alone a lot if you still are intent on eating out somewhat frequently. Also, eating alone is kind of neat as a way of isolating yourself within a public environment. You're there at a table by yourself, eating away, probably also looking at your phone. At the same time, however, you're also in a public space surrounded by people doing the same thing as you. You get the social energy from being around people, along with the serenity of being by yourself.
Am I just justifying not having to try to get a friend to come with me? Probably. Either way, I'm going to get some Mexican food in me within the next hour and a half and that's a good thing.
...
On second thought, maybe that's not a good thing. An hour and a half is a long time and I'm hungry now. Take a look at those images again. Mmmm... Yes, an hour and a half from now is too long to wait. What's more, I've had an epiphany. If I go now, I'll be eating at an odd time, which means there will be less people, which in spite of everything I just talked about concerning social energy and whatnot is still a good thing generally, and less people also means I'll probably get my food sooner.
Yes, it's all becoming clear now. I've got to stop writing this post immediately and eat some Mexican food.
Before that, a quick recap of what we have learned. FACT: Mexican food is the best, this is an undisputed fact by all accounts. FACT: eating alone can be nice sometimes, though I wish it were easier to convince my friends to come and eat with me in any event. FINAL FACT: if you reheat Mexican food, it tastes basically the same, this is pretty rare in the food world and a great property to have for any type of food, it really makes getting extras you can't eat in a to-go box a no-brainer and helps you wring the most value out of every meal. That said, at least for right now, I'll definitely not need a box after eating at wherever I'm about to go because I've worked up such an appetite just writing this that I think I could eat two or three whole entrees.
Anyways, here's a great Mexican song that my brothers and I always laugh at. It came on over the radio when I was eating at a Mexican joint the other day and I pretty much spat out my food. Enjoy!
I wish I could add in the sound effect that plays whenever that "KILL BOSS" thing comes up in-game because the sound effect is great too.
Hyper Light Drifter is one of my favorite games. If you know me, you know this already because I say it all the time. It's a great game and it's just about unsurpassed in its ability to elicit a unique feeling through its use of sound, music, visual tone, and kick-ass gameplay. Ruiner, which I've been playing the past couple days, tries to do the same thing, more or less.
Ruiner is an anime-inspired cyberpunk game that looks and smells a lot like the robotic lovechild of the new Deus Ex games and Terminator 1. It makes for a great aesthetic, and one that's somewhat related to Hyper Light Drifter in that they both embrace design elements that have evolved from 80s and 90s nostalgia. Ruiner is a far more visually complex game though; it's mostly all 3D except for some very slick 2D visuals and the GUI of course. Does that complexity help the game stand out and give it a really compelling look? ABSOLUTELY! Despite the fact that a lot of the stuff in Ruiner is highly derivative, it comes off as more of an homage than a ripoff, rehash, or plagiarism.
One example of this that isn't even visual is the way the famous alarm from Alien loops and drones on in the background of the first stage. It's a diegetic sound, but it's also a clear allusion to the Alien franchise and media of that genre, especially considering you traverse a Nostromo-esque factory in the same level. Maybe it would seem like a lazy reference in another game with less going for it visually and a plainer soundscape, but in Ruiner, that Alien alarm is just one layer of noise that blends in with the great soundtrack and sound effects. All of that blends further with the visuals and violence of the story and game. It's a cohesive whole, maybe that's what's really necessary to transcend merely referencing things and create something transformative; the derivative bits have to at least be great parts of a larger picture. In Ruiner, the sound and visuals at least do this.
The gameplay doesn't though.
It's a top down, sort of 3D isometric style twin stick shooter. In that respect, it's also still similar to Hyper Light Drifter (can you see why I'm comparing them now?), which is a top down action game where, like Ruiner, you whack enemies with a powerful melee weapon and shoot them with a gun whose damage potential is kept in check by an ammunition mechanic. The comparisons don't stop there though, both games also allow the player to execute a dash move that becomes exceedingly important in higher level play. It feels pretty good to dash around clobbering cyberpunk gangsters and cyborgs with a metal pipe or blow them away with a shotgun. Enemy variation isn't a strong suit (at least as far into the game as I've gotten) but encounters have yet to feel stale. The game's got everything going for it, but I don't like playing it as much as Hyper Light Drifter, or Doom for that matter.
Hyper Light Drifter is at least as good at making you feel like a cyber-ninja as Metal Gear Rising: Revengence
Why did I mention Doom? Well the game's also similar to Doom just like it's similar to Hyper Light Drifter. In fact, It's pretty much a crossbreed of those two games but playing Ruiner, I've found myself wishing that the game would commit to being either one of them; either fully 3D like Doom or fully 2D like Hyper Light Drifter.
I honestly think Ruiner would be improved if it was just a cyberpunk version of Doom while still retaining all of its current strengths. I say that because owing to a combination of the game's high frequency detail, dark and sharp lighting, and fast pace, it can sometimes be very difficult to feel connected to what your character is doing. Hyper Light Drifter, which really does have very similar gameplay to this game, doesn't suffer from this problem because of its clean style and more simplified aesthetic; Doom gets around the issue by being fully 3D. Ruiner's half 3D-half 2D style really does nobody any favors but the devs. Sure it's easier to design and plan a 2D action game compared to a 3D one, but they already went through the trouble of modeling everything in 3D. How much more effort would it take to make this an FPS, and even if it was quite a bit, wouldn't it be worth it if the game was fundamentally improved?
I also think hardly anyone would have been less likely to get this game if it was an FPS. Most of the reason anyone knows about it is because of its cool cutscenes presented in the trailers that show off the main character and his jumbotron face. The cutscenes are in full 3D and they are legitimately great and every time the game shifts from showing me one back into the dumbed-down 3D gameplay I sigh thinking about how much more I'd like to be playing the game Ruiner is showing me in those cutscenes.
So unlike the visuals and sound of this game, which don't reinvent the wheel but present a wheel so exquisite it must be experienced, the gameplay doesn't reinvent the wheel and thus it remains just a wheel, and I've played around with a regular wheel before. If Ruiner was the only twin stick shooter around, it'd be the best game ever, but Hyper Light Drifter, which does the twin stick shooter thing better, still exists and it's at least as good as Ruiner in terms of compelling visuals and sound/music.
To be fair, I only start longing for better games while playing Ruiner in the moments where the game doesn't have me entranced by its soundtrack or feeling like an absolute badass blowing away enemies with aplomb. Hyper Light Drifter doesn't have that problem though because there's nothing else like it. So while Ruiner may be really cool, you just can't escape the fatigue its derivative nature builds up in you. While its visual and soundtrack escaped that issue before by being fresh and compelling enough to make you feel like it's unique and great, the gameplay is simply to normal to elicit any such feeling
One last note. You've just read an entire post where I go on and on about how Ruiner is sub-par compared to Hyper Light Drifter. That is not to say it's a bad game! Hyper Light Drifter is amazing and most things suck compared to it! Ruiner is absolutely a really fun and supremely cool game, definitely worth your time if you at all like cyberpunk stuff or games like Hyper Light Drifter, Doom, or twin stick shooters in general.
So I may have trashed it in this pseudo review, but I definitely think you should play Ruiner. Not convinced yet? Watch this trailer:
Planetside 2. Now that's a name I've not heard in a long time.
Majora's mask is my go to favorite game of all time; it's just the best. However, if it weren't for that one, I'd easily say my favorite game of all time is Planetside 2, and that's one very unpopular opinion.
The game is dead, but don't get me wrong, you can still play it. There are still people to play with, you won't have trouble finding battles in-game, but the game is dead. How so? Well when does a game really die? Is it when the plug is finally pulled on the servers, or is it really when all hope of any life being injected back into or flourishing naturally within the game fades? I believe it's the latter.
That's where Planetside 2 is today; there's no hope for it's future. If it isn't already dead, it's at least undead.
It's too bad. Planetside 2 is a great game that's a ton of fun to play. Why didn't it catch on? I think the answer is actually really complicated, but it more or less boils down to the fact that, whereas playing most multiplayer shooters is like dancing, playing Planetside 2 is like surfing.
When you're surfing, you've got to wait for sets, the periods of time where a bunch of larger waves roll in, and in between sets there are lulls, where there really aren't any good waves. Also there are rogue waves sometimes that are just ridiculous, come out of nowhere, and are huge. Maybe Planetside also has those? Whatever, rogue waves are really neat though.
Does this image have anything to do with Planetside? Hmmm... you decide (hint: no)
Planetside 2 is exactly the same. Unlike a game like Battlefield 1 that's even still a combined arms multiplayer shooter, you don't play matches. There is a beginning and end to fights, but it's naturally dictated when either of those points are by the actions of the players. Battles rage and multiple fronts are pushed across the map (there are 4 large maps). From the player's perspective, this plays out as a fight rolling into a washing over a base like a set of waves. For anywhere from five minutes to maybe even an hour, a battle can go on in one place until one side gets enough of the upper hand to push it elsewhere. Once that happens, there's a lull, again just like surfing, where fights die down, players regroup, and some people move on to the next battlefield. It's an open-world Battlefield game, doesn't that sound fun? Doesn't that sound immersive?
Well it is, and that's the problem. With that immersion comes the responsibility to handle these extra systems lest they handle you, unlike other games where they are handled for you. Again, just like surfing, Planetside 2 requires a certain mindset to really be fun. Most shooters these days are designed to give you a straight up dopamine release. You kill a man, a sound plays (think the ching! noise you hear whenever you get a kill in Battlefield 1), and your brain, which has been taught through Pavlovian conditioning to value that sound, floods with dopamine. It's easy, but it's also really sick (and not in the surfer lingo way) but that's just how it works.
Surfing certainly isn't that easy. If you have ever surfed I'm sure you immediately understand. In reality the experience of surfing isn't like how it's portrayed in Lilo and Stitch or Point Break. It's not some immediately, constantly, and consistently fulfilling spiritual experience, it's only that way once two things happen: you git gud, and you get you philosophy sorted out. It's the same way in Planetside. Without the tightly structured and arbitrarily designed battles made to make you feel happy, you're left on your own to get something out of the experience of fighting as one soldier. Often the game won't help you with that, especially when you're losing. A lot of players will be stuck on the losing side and they'll just be depressed about it. They're running into the front over and over again dying to the same dudes and getting nothing done. The thing is, these noob players don't understand that this is Planetside, you don't have to keep your mind in "run to fight, kill man, repeat" mode all the time. You can switch to an infiltrator and flank the enemy, switch to a light assault and blow up their spawn point, or even just leave for another battle.
neat!
Because it's so much more of an immersive experience, gameplay-wise, Planetside leaves a lot of higher concepts up to you that aren't even a thing in other games like determining whether or not you should stay fighting in a losing battle, figuring out where a front is moving, and deciding what kind of soldier you want to play as. All of this is made a lot harder when you suck at the game, and there's really no cure for that aside from gitting gud.
So again, like surfing, it's not going to be a fun time unless you're in the right mind and can actually catch any waves, and sometimes the waves will even just suck.
Well that's not going to get anyone hyped about Planetside.
But I've rattled on long enough. If you've read all this and it sounds like a really interesting game, it's because it is. Planetside's the Metal Gear Solid V (open-world, lots or freedom to choose how you do battle, but also lots of responsibility to choose how you do battle) to multiplayer shooters' Metal Gear Solid IV (linear, way less freedom to choose, almost no responsibility to choose how you do battle). I hope you've at least got a better understanding of why it's often not really Planetside's fault when players find that they don't enjoy playing it. It's really their own fault, just like in surfing, and that's hard to take. But also just like surfing, playing Planetside 2 is an experience that's really rewarding in a really unique way.
And here's that old Planetside 2 trailer. The game is almost nothing like this, but it's a great trailer! (also it makes me yearn for a true successor to Planetside 2, which probably won't be Planetside 3 at this point)
Let me paint a picture for you. On one side of my screen I've got this window open and I'm writing this blog post. On the other side of my screen I've got the MCU Wikipedia page open and we're gonna go through it.
Settle in.
I'm a big fan of the Marvel movies and I think it's crazy where the MCU is now. Back in 2007, Iron Man was definitely one of the most important Marvel characters, definitely not undoubtedly THE most important Marvel character, and certainly not the sort of character off of which a small movie studio (soon to be acquired by Disney) could launch a ten year, twenty movie, over $12 billion franchise.
But now, the Marvel movies kind of dominate the world of entertainment, rightfully so, and we're all just so lucky that this even happened. So to celebrate this craziness, here's my list of the Marvel movies from worst to best.
Behold! The ugliest Hulk ever!
The Incredible Hulk - Unequivocally the worst MCU movie. It's bad all on its own and while most MCU films weave together to form a cinematic tapestry the likes of which has never been created in ANY medium, The Incredible Hulk's minuscule contributions to the greater MCU story can be counted on basically one hand and they all suck.
A poster that's better than the movie! And not even a great poster...
Thor: The Dark World - To put into perspective how bad Thor: The Dark World is, the director of the movie, Alan Taylor, went on to direct Terminator Genisys. This movie is a pain to watch, and it really doesn't make any sense. The world ending scale of the events in the plot do not match up with the scale of the action that actually goes down (small) or the level of investment the audience feels with anything happening on screen (none).
Why did I choose this picture? That goofy-ass face.
Thor - To put into perspective how GOOD the MCU is in general, with just two movies out of the way, we're into the movies that are good. Thor is good. I really like the Frost Giant stuff is really neat, and Thor's interactions with Odin and Loki are really great. Notable Shakespearean actor/director, Kenneth Branagh, directed this one and I think it really shows in the scenes that are, well Shakespearean (those ones where Thor, Loki, and Odin are hamming it up).
I was really looking forward to this one...
Black Panther - So, there was a version of this blurb that went into a lot more detail on this one. Instead, in my opinion, it's an overrated entry whose reviews were really skewed by social factors that had nothing to do with the actual film. It's got a lot of plot problems, at least to the same degree as Thor: The Dark World. What Dark World doesn't have though is a crazy social meta-narrative like the one with Black Panther, and that honestly does add a lot to the film as a whole. Taken as a film on just its own merits though, while it's good, It's not as good as Iron Man 2, for example.
It was really cool to see so many Iron Man suits at the time.
Iron Man 2 - Often cited as one of the worst MCU films, Iron Man 2 is in fact one of the worst MCU films. Might seem like I wrote that sentence wrong, but I didn't. Iron Man 2 is technically one of the worst MCU films, but only because there are so many others that are really good. The part where people are wrong is in implying that Iron Man 2 is a bad film in general. It's actually another really fun entry in the universe and it sets up a lot of neat stuff, like Black Widow, War Machine, more Avengers stuff, and it even has a cameo from everyone's favorite messiah, Elon Musk.
Not as good as you remember.
Guardians of the Galaxy - This one is usually ranked a lot higher on other people's lists. I've rewatched Guardians of the Galaxy recently though and it doesn't really hold up to the "OH MY GOD THIS IS AMAZING" levels of hype it debuted to. I do like the color and tone of the film though. It's easy to take it for granted now that there have been at least five other films like it, all bright, saturated, and funny, but that all really got kicked off by Guardians. I think the movie is at its best when Star Lord is doing his thing, it could really just be a Star Lord movie, because a lot of the other characters kind of drag it down, at least compared to Star Lord.
Pictured: dirt, and Ant-Man.
Ant-Man - I really liked Ant-Man, what can I say? It was definitely the funniest MCU movie until Ragnarok came out and blew everything else away. Now? Well now it's just a fun self-contained story that fits in really well with the rest of the entire MCU as filler, more or less, but really good filler.
Better than you remember.
Captain America: The First Avenger - This one is often cited as the most underrated MCU film. If it's said to be underrated that often though, is it really that underrated? I'll say that it's just pretty damn good. Captain America: The First Avenger stands apart from the rest of the MCU films in a lot of ways. It isn't like the other Captain America films. It isn't at all like the Thor, Guardians, or Iron Man films. It's unique, and in a good way.
I always thought Black widow looked ridiculous in this poster. I mean she looks good, but damn.
Captain America: The Winter Soldier - This one's overrated, BUT it's also really good. That right there is a tough concept with no good word or phrase in English; overrated, but actually good. Like Interstellar, but not like The Dark Knight, which is overrated, but even BETTER than people think it is. Anyways, The Winter Soldier was a much needed grounding of the MCU. It's pretty well paced, and yet it manages to tell a whole lot of small character stories and drop a MASSIVE MCU story twist in the middle of what should just be a side story. It's a good example of an MCU film that tells its own story while really enhancing the rest of the universe.
Asgardians of the Galaxy...
Thor: Ragnarok - I have no idea where to put this one, that's why I slapped it between The Winter Soldier and Homecoming. It belongs around here on the list, but several good cases could be made that it deserves to be in a couple different spots up or down from here. What can in arguably be stated about Ragnarok is that it's hilarious. Is the plot any good? It's good, but only okay good. Really the humor and general flawless presentation of Ragnarok buoys it up to this section of the list. It's not director Taika Waititi's best work (that'd be Hunt for the Wilderpeople), but it is the best Thor movie.
Spider-Man: Homecoming - I'm not really sure if Spider-Man: Homecoming is better than the Winter Soldier; it probably isn't, to be honest. However, I really enjoyed it and I think it tells a great story. It's the third first Spider-Man movie, and yet it tells a story where you really can't go ahead and know from ten minutes in where everything is headed. Of course, that's probably because it has SIX different writers, but that's probably because Marvel is probably trying very hard to set up Spider-Man to lead the MCU going into the future, probably. Heck, I'm on board!
This is an action figure! Or is it a figurine? Is there a difference? Is it just a model?
Doctor Strange - I've got this ranked this high because of the Dormammu I've come to bargain scene. Everyone loves that scene. What everyone forgets is that the rest of the movie is really good too, in fact it's REALLY good. Doctor Strange does what Ant-Man does just slightly better I think, that being the self-contained Marvel story within the MCU. I'm really excited to see what else is done with Doctor Strange in the MCU. This is definitely one of the films I've placed in the wrong location on the list, but heck, some of these have to be controversial!
I remember being so hyped for all the pieces of this poster to be revealed at Comic-Con
Avengers: Age of Ultron - Oh no, not this controversial! (Lets be honest though, placing Black Panther essentially on the bottom was the most controversial thing I did) Age of Ultron gets a bad rap. Sure, it isn't as good as Avengers 1, but it's still a really fun Avengers movie. All your favorite characters are in it doing their things and while the plot may be a bit all over the place, the nature of the movie kind of allows that to be forgiven. We already know all the characters, we already know they're flying all over the world, we already expect that they'll argue a bit but come together in the end to defeat the bad guy. This is a good movie and a GREAT MCU film.
A good background, but I'm pretty sure you don't see anything like this in the movie
Iron Man 3 - Here's yet another one people routinely underrate. Maybe I should have just listed these all in the generally accepted order and then just made my case for whether they are over or underrated instead of writing these blurbs. Anyways, Shane Black's Iron Man 3 has some of the best character work in the MCU. Tony Stark is great in it, and so are all the other characters (except the kid, keep the kids of the screen please). There's a lot to say about Iron Man 3, but I think the most important thing to say is just go see it again, you probably haven't in a while, and I think you'd like it.
TANK MISSILE!
Iron Man - Do I need to justify having this here, near the top of the list? Not at all. Iron Man is a modern classic. Nuff said.
Definitely one of the best posters ever made.
Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2 - Here's one that's really grown on me. Sequels in the MCU are kind of hit or miss (guess that's why they've really backed off making straight sequels) but this is undoubtedly a home run. Everything you love from Guardians of the Galaxy is back, but better, and there's a whole slew of side stories and new or greatly expanded characters that make this one of the greatest comic book movies ever made, and just great time in general.
Just a great movie!
Marvel's The Avengers - This one's legendary. Beyond that, it's fantastic (oh god, I just remembered Fan4stic, let's just move on!). When I left the theater after first seeing Avengers, I thought to myself, "If I could have known, before seeing this movie, how jazzed I would be about having seen it, as I am now that I have seen it, I would have gladly paid 100 bucks to see it." (now there's a grammatically complex sentence!) In other words, it was a movie-watching experience worth ten times the price of admission. Today, not so much, only because I've seen it so many times since. But every time I catch a piece of it on TV I end up watching a big ol' chunk, same goes for those clips you can find on YouTube. I find myself watching most of the good parts of this dang movie in pieces on YouTube every few months because it's just that good.
A REALLY great movie!
Captain America: Civil War - The best MCU film. There is no other choice. No other film has a villain as great, a plot as cool, characters as deep. The Russo brothers really knocked this one out of the park and I CANNOT WAIT for Infinity War because if it's half as good as Civil War, it'll at least be as good as The Winter Soldier. Civil War isn't just the best MCU film though, it's a great film all on it's own. I hesitate to say that it's the best film on it's own of all the MCU films, that might be Iron Man or Guardians 2, but it's absolutely the best the MCU has to offer, if that makes any sense.
Well that's it for the MCU films as of March, 2018. Did you agree with the list? Do you think I really am just a secret racist for not jerking off Black Panther? What about Doctor Strange? I put that one above Winter Soldier, how could that be right? Well there is no right or wrong here, just opinions. Leave your opinion in the comments below and here's a trailer for Infinity War to get you pumped for the future of the MCU (if you're reading this after Infinity War, or even later, I'm jealous).
English professors like to try to spruce up their classes with junk like video projects. I don't know why, English is a cool enough thing in and of itself. In fact, if I were a college professor, I think I'd like to be an English professor. Heck, I already have all sorts of wack pet theories about how the English language accumulates the wisdom of its users and that this trove of knowledge can be accessed by interpreting the origin and use of words; that's a thesis paper topic right there. That's the sort of stuff I'd like to be discussing in English class (though maybe that stuff would be in a linguistics class, if that's a thing). What I don't want to be learning in English class is how to make a video presentation in iMovie, for the fourth time.
Pictured: Me, in a metaphorical sense, learning the basics of iMovie for the fourth time in an English class
You might know that I have a YouTube channel. It's nothing too special, but I'm at least proud of a handful of the videos I've put there. How do I have a YouTube channel? Well, they're free. But, how can I make the videos that I put there? Well, I'm pretty damn good at making videos and editing them up in Adobe Premiere. I've been doing that for like 10 years at this point. Obviously, I'm no pro, but I'm definitely not so much of a newbie that an introductory 2 hour class on iMovie will teach me anything I don't already know!!
I'm probably beating around the bush too much; let me tell you what the situation is literally right now as I type this blog post in class. For the past two class periods in this English class, a man from the library has given us a tutorial on how to put together a baby's first video sort of project in iMovie. This would be no big deal if you're the average student who has probably only ever mooched off of a friend like me to edit their Spanish video project (what's up with language classes and video projects?). But for me, the friend who DOES know how to edit video, these kinds of class periods are torture.
When I tell people this, I usually get the same response: "Eric, you're great at making movies, that class sounds like fun!" Oh yeah, Mom, well how fun would it be for Michelangelo to be subjected to a beginners sculpture tutorial? How fun would it be for Elon Musk to have to sit through a 4 hour presentation on the basics of rocketry? It sounds like NOT fun. I'm neither Elon Musk nor Michelangelo when it comes to editing video content, but I'll tell you what, I'm getting about the same value out of theses iMovie classes as those guys would get out of those other beginner classes, which is to say NO VALUE.
I've taken an actual cinematography class. I've taken a video art class. I've taken an animation class. I made video projects for English, Spanish, and science classes before college. I've got this damn YouTube channel that I've been running for two years with like 150 videos on it. I've taught myself Premiere, had now literally FOUR classes teach me how to make junk in iMovie, and I even had to learn Avid and After Affects at one point. I've got a lot of experience with this video editing stuff man, I don't need this fourth walkthrough on how to import media to iMovie.
Luckily, it's now 4:51, this class ends in only like 30 minutes, and I can probably even reasonably leave a few minutes before that. My torture will end soon enough. I guess I still haven't really answered why I wouldn't just get started on the video now. It may be torture to sit through the tutorial, but this lab time to work on the actual video should at least be productive, right? Well... the professor has—for some unknown reason—scheduled this iMovie tutorial and lab time two weeks before the paper we're actually making a presentation for is even due. I don't think anyone in the class, certainly not me, has even started on the thing, so how are we supposed to make a video presenting it now? It's madness!
UPDATE: Between the last paragraph and this one I've wasted 20 minutes, it's now 5:11 and just about time to go home! Woohoo!
Well anyways, here's a video I made a couple months ago about God Hand, which is a great game made by Shinji Mikami (Resident Evil) and the now defunct Clover Studio (Viewtiful Joe, Okami, they basically were reborn as PlatinumGames):
