Where is Super Mario 64 2 Anyway?

In 1996, one of the greatest video games of all-time invaded stores and jump-started the Nintendo 64’s launch. Super Mario 64 would forever change the world of gaming by introducing a new look into 3-D gaming that would set the benchmark for the way platform, adventure, and all 3-D games are made. After years of rumors of a Super Mario 64 2, instead we wait until the Nintendo Gamecube to get another massive Mario adventure. Super Mario Sunshine wasn’t the best of the main Mario titles, but still has its share of fun.


And with the Wii we receive two gems, two masterpieces, two instant classics that tested the graphical and creative limits of the folks at Nintendo. Super Mario Galaxy 2 at one point was placed in a tie as my favorite Mario game, although nowadays it will quietly maintain itself in the top 5. And then we also got the ultra-selling New Mario Bros. franchise that has sold over 48 million copies on two systems. That being said....it has been over 15 years and we still haven’t had a true blue sequel to Super Mario 64. And I am about to explain why, and I am about to explain why it’s been too long and it should happen.


Super Mario 64’s playcontrol has remained the most underrated aspect of the game. Mario 64 has over 30 different moves that you can perform. And remember this was back in 1996, his arsenal of moves were far advanced from the norm. For starters you can choose to walk, run, or crawl. If you were to very lightly move Mario in a certain direction he can even do a sneaky kind of walk. You can jump, double-jump, triple-jump, long jump, backflip, cartwheel, punch, double-punch, kick, wall kick, low kick, high kick, stomp, slide, somersault, climb, do a handstand, sidestep, dive, swim, spin, and just so much more. And this is the list of moves without getting a power-up.

While all of this seems trivial, remember this: Grand Theft Auto to this day still prevents their main characters from doing anything other than a weak combination of punching and kicking. It took over a decade since the debut of the franchise before their main character could even swim. Sonic still can’t do a quarter of the moves Mario did in Mario 64. And you know who else doesn’t do as many moves as Super Mario 64 Mario? Super Mario Sunshine Mario. Super Mario Galaxy Mario. New Super Mario Bros. Mario. And lastly, the upcoming Super Mario 3D Land Mario.

With Mario Sunshine, his waterpack prevented him from doing a variety of the moves from Mario 64. Surely he can hover above the ground with the water pack, but you are limited to the amount of different ways of finding the “stars.” In Super Mario 64, there were many different ways you could locate and collect the star, depending on what moves you were better at doing. Super Mario Galaxy was closer in matching the amount of moves in Mario 64, but still was held back because the Wiimote simply has less buttons. In terms of pure combat, Mario can only jump, throw stars, and spinning. That’s about it.

The 2-D Marios are also limited, but because of the limited space. With a dimension tucked away and not in the foreground, Mario is limited to running, jumping, and a few other moves. While 2-D Mario has come a long way since Super Mario World, he still doesn’t have a developed arsenal of 2-D moves. On a technicality, Yoshi’s Island offered you more moves to do. Super Mario 64 gives Mario the most freedom to run around and do whatever he pleased, defeat opponents however he pleased.


Super Mario 64’s freedom is what I honestly miss the most. And I don’t mean just the levels either. Mario 64’s overworld was massive, as it consisted of the courtyard, the castle, and all the hidden layers of said castle. Remember reaching the balcony? Remember finding the basement? Remember finding hidden paintings inside the castle? There was so much to find, and you could roam around and dictate your pace while exploring. I never felt as free when running around Mario Sunshine and Mario Galaxy. And with Mario Galaxy 2 eliminating it altogether, that game just felt....smaller. Mario 64 was our first glimpse of what it would feel like if Super Mario had a Zelda-quantity adventure. And it felt good.

Even the levels themselves felt more Zelda and less 2-D Mario. Unlike what happened in the Galaxy games and also the Sunshine game to an extent, Mario 64’s stars could usually be collected in a different order. Not only that but the levels could mostly be explored in whatever order you desire---once you get enough stars. Remember the Hazy Maze Cave? Remember Gritzy Desert? Remember Rainbow Ride? These levels were huge, and extremely non-linear. If there was a flaw to Mario galaxy 2, its that sometimes the levels were a little linear, giving it more a 2-D Mario touch.



Bottom Line: We have had a lot of Mario games since the 1996 gaming jewel, but none have been a spiritual sequel. As opposed to expanding upon the adventurous, non-linear Super Mario style of gameplay, we get Mario with a water pack, we get Mario back in 2-D form, and we get Mario with a smaller set of moves in a new art style. And like I said before, don’t get me wrong, all the following Mario games were great in their own right, but none can become called true sequels. They don’t have the spirit of Super Mario 64, even if they have the Super Mario magic.

I want to see Super Mario in not just a larger environment, but a larger environment in which you can explore every single cranny of it. Of course Galaxy seems bigger, but the planets and stars themselves are a bit smaller than they could have been. Can you imagine if they had incorporated Mario 64 elements to Galaxy? We would have Mario exploring entire planets looking for stars. Imagine spending an entire gaming session browsing around a planet you just unlocked. Imagine a Mario game in which you leave the confides of the castle and explore the Mushroom Kingdom the size of an Elder Scrolls area. It might not be the direction that the Nintendo folks want to engage in, but it’s a direction I’d love to see explored at least once more. Give us at least one true, blue, sequel to Mario 64. Give Mario his freedom back. The WiiU can accomplish this. It’s just a matter of if Nintendo wants to.

So what is it? Mario 64 2? Or Super Mario Universe?

Nevermind: The Album that Musically Started the 90s

It was 1991 and the music scene consisted of 80s pop crossing over to the new decade with minimal competition. Artists like Michael Jackson, Paula Abdul, Janet Jackson, Guns n’ Roses, Bon Jovi, and others rocked the 80s and were prepared to run away with the 90s as well. Pop pretty much dominated all as r&b had not yet really caught on; rap had just got only their second #1 hit in the Billboard charts in history (Ice, Ice, Baby), and rock music really was reduced to the glam rock that the underground was growing tired of. There had not been a big new musical wave since Led Zeppelin and the Arena Rock scene back in the mid-late 70s. Music at the time was sugar-coated candy that’s enjoyable in small bursts until the next new pop song comes along. And then came Nevermind.

It has been 20 years since Nirvana’s legendary breakthrough album quietly popped into stores and jump-started a new wave of music, a new sound, and a new voice for a generation that had been shunned musically for quite some time. Under their worldwide smash “Smells Like Teen Spirit,” Nirvana’s Nevermind became arguably the first alternative rock album to fluctuate away from the college and underground crowd and seep into the entire musical mainstream. And Nirvana didn’t just become a huge popular band, but opened the door for dozens of other rock bands that had been under-the-radar in the 80s and also for up-and-coming bands within the same region.


R.E.M., Metallica, Pearl Jam, Alice in Chains, Soundgarden, Red Hot Chilli Peppers, Smashing Pumpkins, Stone Temple Pilots, Weezer, Bush, Radiohead, Oasis (whether you guys like it or not punks), and Blur (among many many others) rose in popularity at around the same time period as Nevermind’s Billboard and worldwide reign. One band is coincidence. Two bands, perhaps coincidence. More than a dozen? Beginning of a revolution. Beginning of something new. Nevermind started out small and by the end of 1992 was outselling Michael Jackson’s latest album by a longshot. Not only did this instant smash destroy the career of many pop and rock acts, it would sell over 30 million copies worldwide and remains one of the most influential and important albums in the last 30 years. This album set the benchmark for the sound of 90s rock—alternative or not. The 90s didn’t start in 1990, but in 1991 when Nirvana truly arrived.


So just what makes this album so special? What allowed it to hit such a nerve in the music industry? Well, we can start with what listeners had been dealing with for years. 80s glam rock consisted of your overblown, over-produced music that had lyrics abut rampaging around, having fun, messing around with the ladies, taking drugs, among other crazy things everyone did in the 80s. Surely some of it was great (Van Halen anyone?) but none of this music truly touches the soul, truly strikes emotional nerves. Glam rock is to rock fans what pop music is to the mainstream---good, but ultimately forgettable candy-coated minutes of amusement to the ears. 80s metal actually was happening as a way to combat this glam rock---Metallica, Anthrax, Slayer, Iron Maiden, and others were playing music as loud, fast, and ferocious as possible to appeal to those sick of the Van Halen-Poison-Bon Jovi sound.


Nevermind’s sound consisted of music that you swear was played in a garage with no production value whatsoever. Three people were in this band: a guitarist, a bassist, and a drummer; nothing more, nothing less. In an age when dozens of people worked on Michael Jackson’s music or when 5-6 people were involved in the same rock band, Nirvana’s simplified sound can be attributed to the fact that there was no rhythm guitar, no keyboard, no extra bassist, no extra drumming in the background, and very minimal cleansing of the guitars. That’s what grunge is, very distorted, very edgy, very raw rock music that is unpredictable, unfocused, unorganized, but just catchy enough to grab your attention and force you to adapt. They didn’t sound like a band set out to make ishloads of money, they sounded like a band that just loved to play. And they didn’t make music for the mainstream, the mainstream adapted to their music.


And they didn’t just play, they played from the heart. While they aren’t the first band to write all the lyrics with their hearts on the sleeves, they popularized the technique for a new generation. Glam rock avoided the emotions and tribulations of life; Nirvana hit it straight-on with full intentions. Vague and constantly-questionable lyrics plagued the entire album, as its mystique and vague aura of it all actually contributed to the unique sound that struck all the right nerves to a new generation of rock fans and wanna-be rock stars. Grunge isn’t ever limited to just one consistent sound either, Nevermind and the best grunge music out there (Pearl Jam’s Ten, Nirvana’s In Utero, Stone Temple Pilots’ Core) features a wide range of vocals, guitars, and moods.


Smells Like Teen Spirit is a 5-minute anti-everything medley that features a great guitar solo, a screaming finale, and a very catchy riff. Something in the Way is a purposely quiet tune that rarely ever increases in noise, as if they are performing this in a secluded, isolated part of town. Come as You Are is a guitar-heavy track that sounds like more bass than anything else, while incorporating a very slow pace and of course, vague lyrics. Drain You is a very dirty song in terms of production value, and for that it works well. In Bloom, arguably their best song in the album is an extremely ironic song about people singing along to songs despite not knowing what it means with an excellent guitar solo, a very catchy guitar/bass riff, and of course, a roller-coaster like transition between light and heavy sounds. And another one of my favorites, Lithium, is just a crazy sinister song with lyrics bouncing all over the place, a wide range of vocals and volumes, and all wrapped up with a great chorus.

The album has so many influential tracks, sounds, moments, and innovative techniques that to this very day we see bands constantly trying to hammer out the same type of sound produced in this made-for-$500,000 medley of Northwest rock. While most of its modern-day success can be attributed to the fact that Kurt Cobain became a martyr of the rock star life with his suicide, you can’t deny its power back when he was alive, Nirvana was alive and strong, and all these new bands were bursting with anticipation for a chance to shine. Massive musical revolutions like this one do not happen often (Beatlemania, Rise of British Metal in the 70s, Arena Rock /New Wave in the early 80s, The Backstreet Boys Pop Group Takeover of the late 90s, The Latin Revolution of 1999, the Flower Power Pop Scene of today) but it’s even rarer to see a whole portion of the population represent itself through the music of one band.

One can only imagine what would have happened if Kurt had stayed alive and been around for the continuing domination of alternative rock and the eventual rise of nu-metal. The question is would the music scene be totally different had Kurt Cobain not killed himself and brought down all these grunge bands with him? Would we have the music of today reigning supreme if Nirvana had still existed? Nirvana was a few steps away from becoming the next Beatles, whether you like it or not.

The Beatles, love them or hate them, definitely did not keep the same sound. They started out as a pop group and evolved into a psychedelic rock band in a mere couple of years. But as they evolved, their fans were intently following, eating up any music the Beatles were throwing at them. That band couldn't miss. Despite their eternal influence on an entire generation of people, the band barely lasted over half a decade before the unfortunate breakup. With In Utero, Nirvana’s third album, being (purposely) dramatically and extremely different from Nevermind, how much longer would Generation X follow this band? Its one of the great mysteries of music history, and all we can do is ponder because after Cobain pulled that trigger, escaping all the fame he didn’t want, Nevermind and its revolutionary tale of success came to an end.


But we are not here to be saddened by his death, we are here to preserve and continue his legacy by recognizing the greatest work from one of the best bands in recent decades. While they didn’t spend much time together in the music scene (and stopped performing way too soon), their few albums paved the way for an influx of music that would temporarily kill the pop scene, usher in a lot of wonderful music, and end the careers of many artists from the 80s, rendering them as afterthoughts. Nevermind is a masterful album that has honestly aged quite well. Its tunes are still catchy, its lyrics are still crazy and sometimes unstructured, and Kurt Cobain despite not being the best singer, or guitarist, or writer, dug deep into his soul and still managed to create beautiful music. Great music can come from anyone, and Nevermind was the defining example of this. They were three men in Seattle with an underground audience that worked together to make something that didn’t just hit, but struck pure gold. And started something new.





Happy 20th Anniversary, Nevermind.

And rest in peace, Kurt Cobain.

Drive: 0/10

A Multi-Layered Abuse to the Film Industry,
19 September 2011

So I walked out of the movie Drive. This is the first time I've ever done such a thing. I've seen a lot of bad movies in my day but there has never been one that infuriated me to a point in which I couldn't continue. And being a film lover, I sat down and analyzed just why exactly this movie ticked me off so much. What was it about this movie that drove me up the wall to a point in which I walked out before I even got to see the conclusion? It wasn't the acting. It wasn't the music. And it wasn't the lush cinematography. What irked me the most was that Drive was disguising itself as an indie flick when in actuality it wanted to become an action movie so badly.

And this strategy while an insult to the entire institution of filmmaking, worked. It got rave reviews at film festivals here and there and got nice reviews from critics, lavishing the acting, supposed tension, and cinematography. I watch this movie because of the rave reviews and literally saw the Transporter movie wrapped in an indie flavor, nothing more. The first half, where we supposedly see "character development," consists of characters engaging in extremely minimal small talk and the rest of the time just staring at each other. I am not kidding. After the tense opening which reveals our main character's secret job (which is familiar to the opening of Transporter), we get nothing for about 40 minutes. Except a lot of pointless scenes.

Drive is about a very good stuntman that doubles as a secret driver at night (Ryan Gosling) who silently falls for his new neighbor (Carey Mulligan) while at the same time gets mixed up in a mob scene (which loosely is a Transporter plot). The first half has all the development, only in the second half is when we see all the action and driving you've been observing in the previews. Based off a novel of the same name, the script must have been easy to write, because it barely has any dialogue while the story is pretty much a mashup of Tarantino-like violence with Transporter-like symptoms.

The movie is so inconsistent, and amongst the small pieces that don't fit together they are all sparkles of what we've seen before—and what we've seen before has all been superior. The supposed amazing chase sequences? Bourne and Ronin does them better----and to a similar budget extent, The Transporter. The supposed amazing violent tension? I can name dozens of movies that do it better. And the extreme violence that is inconsistent with the theme, tone, pace, and characterization of the first half of this slum? Of course, while it doesn't quite match the plot it's been perfected years upon years ago by Tarantino and even to an extent Robert Rodriguez.

But another big reason why I dislike this film so much is because with Drive, we've seen it all before, and yet the critics will not point this out—or choose to avoid it. We've seen these types of movies before (quiet men that has their actions do all the talking), we've seen this type of ultra-action before, and we've seen these stupid attempts at conflicting and blending genres far too many times in the indie and mainstream scene. Drive was originally billed as blockbuster during development so what do they do? Hide the fact that it's the clichéd low-caliber blockbuster that's trying so hard to be a European Tarantino hybrid. They trimmed the dialogue, screen time, and for the Cannes Film Festival nixed the action billing and called it an independent film. They literally were changing the packaging and tone of the movie based off of box office numbers. That's disgusting. They were trying to sway the critics by changing the entire genre.

Bottom Line: Drive, you are a pathetic, pointless, stupid, trite, slow, muggy, grudgy, tasteless, senseless, disposable, forgettable movie with abysmal pacing, abysmal writing, and no sense of direction whatsoever from the first second to the last second I watched before deciding to walk away. You don't know what movie you want to become, as you literally spit yourself through at least three different genres that actually repeal each other like a magnet. You barely clock in at 100 minutes, yet it felt like two hours the first half in. I will not blame the acting, for they had next to nothing to work with. I will not blame the cinematography, which wasn't bad either. I will blame the fact that your crew decided to pretend like your movie was artsy, underground, and indie, when in actuality your movie is this ultraviolent action movie that rears its ugly head long after the audience has fallen asleep through the numbing first half.

Your movie sucks.

Bad.

The Darko Treatment

I am going to coin a brand new phrase that I know will not catch on but darn it, I am going to use it for all my future sports articles. After seeing Cam Newton once again deliver a powerful performance (and against the Packers to boot) I am sure everyone in Denver is pondering what could have happened if they had given Tim Tebow the same type of love. Not saying Tebow can provide these types of numbers (although he is more than capable of doing so), but what I am saying is that with time and care, he could have developed into a nice quarterback going into his second year. Instead, we have the hapless Broncos barely etch out a win over the Bengals (at home) while observe the most dangerous 0-2 team in the NFL, the Carolina Panthers, stand tall and mighty behind their brand new quarterback.

It’s a darn shame the Panthers don’t play the Broncos this season, which would have made for potentially excellent football. So while Kyle Orton continues his subpar-below .500 performance, New-in-Town has already thrown for over 800 yards in just a couple of games. Remember, the Panthers have been 2-16 in their last 18 regular season games yet they carry more momentum than the Broncos. But alas, Tebow is third-string. As long as he is in Denver, he might never have a chance to succeed. And that my friends, is the Darko Treatment.


The Darko Treatment is what happens when a young player with plenty of talent that succeeded in many levels during the college/minor league days isn’t given a chance when entering the big leagues for one reason or another. The Darko Treatment is when potentially great careers are tarnished, damaged, ruined because they didn’t get the proper help, care, and devotion once they hit professional ball. In all honesty, the best way to ensure that you unpolished talent shines like a nice diamond in the future is with time-----playing time. My new coined phrase is named after the very sad career of Darko Milicic.

Darko was selected 2nd in the NBA Draft by the Detroit Pistons way back in 2003. Larry Brown had no plans to ever using him, as they already had a powerful lineup that took them to an NBA Title and constant rushes to the Eastern Conference Finals. The man was used only when the Pistons were winning by a couple touchdowns late in the game. He was averaging barely a half-dozen minutes per game. And this didn’t happen one season, it actually happened for three seasons in a row until the Orlando Magic finally got him. By that time, instead of becoming a star player or a well-developed sidekick, he was a benchman that was bouncing around from team to team. Last I checked he was playing for the Timberwolves.


Let’s compare him now to the #1 draft pick of that same season: LeBron James. While I hate the man now, back in his first year he practically was given an immeasurable amount of care, time, and devotion to make sure he truly developed into a star. He worked closely with Mike Brown, the underrated coach at the time for the Cleveland Cavaliers. LeBron James was fresh out of high school, but had a thirst for basketball and a great amount of talent. He was a post-up game and attitude check away from being the next Kobe Bryant. Eventually, the Cavs would become a powerhouse franchise, constantly entering the playoffs and at one point had back-to-back 60-win seasons. Did they have a good team? No, what they did have was fully-developed talent (that didn’t even go to college) and a good coach backing him up. One can only wonder what would have happened if Larry Brown, another well-known defensive specialist, had worked with Darko’s potential. He was a 7-foot center that can shoot, move the ball, and defend. What more do you want?


Tebow and Darko aren’t the only examples of the Darko Treatment: J.J. Reddick is an outstanding example of this--and one that personally affects me being a Magic fan. He is a Duke legend, one that has broken nearly every scoring record for his school, and yet here he is still on the bench when for three years he was promised a starting role in the Magic rotation. He is hands-down one of the most popular players for the Magic, and this is despite not actually being a starter. Unlike some of the bums that give minimal effort towards anything in that lineup, J.J. gives his all continuously. He will never fully blossom because he spent so many years under the cellar. Stan Van Gundy has been a great coach for a mediocre team in the past years, but has dropped the ball with this man.


And let's compare this to a baseball team that has purposely has avoided the likes of the Darko Treatment in recent years, leading to surprising successful runs year after year after year. The Tampa Bay Rays actually throw their new talent in the thick of pennant races, start them off in very tough situations. David Price, Jeremy Hellickson, Desmond Jennings, and now Matt Moore are just prime examples of players that started out playing in the middle of a heated race with the Yankees and Red Sox. While some critics will say that this is no way to start off young talent, Joe Maddon and co. do this because it displays their trust in these upstart rookies. This type of trust ensures that these players are more than just pawns in an eternal chess match against the rivals--they are part of the future of the organization. And now, with one of the youngest (and cheapest) squads in the majors, the Rays are still in the Wild Card race against the heavy-hitters Boston Red Sox and California Angels.


So back to Tim Tebow, this man needs his chance to play. You can’t squander his youth years otherwise he can’t mature and develop when he becomes a full-time pro, if that ever actually happens. How does a man with two national championships under his belt (and in the inane SEC conference) still get lack of respect from the other Broncos peers? Kyle Orton is a miserable 12-18 with the Denver Broncos. What does it take for Tebow to head out there? A 0-16 season? The Broncos are ruining a great talent, and you all know that’s one of my pet peeves---wasted talent. That’s what LeBron is, but for very different reasons.

Broncos, you have wonderful talent on the bench. The SEC, despite being evil in every single way possible, can craft good wholesome quarterbacks. The Panthers saw this in Newton and used him as first-string immediately. And while the Panthers are 0-2, their confidence level is as high as it has been in years. They see a future. With the Broncos, they don’t see any future, just a muddled present.


Broncos, please stop the Darko Treatment; you are killing a career slowly but surely.

Laugh at My Pain: 6/10

Dear Kevin Hart: You are funny, but you ain't no Chappelle yet

Kevin Hart has risen from underground sensation to a mainstream comedian with a massively successful tour that rivals that of Eddie Murphy's conquering of the 80s. In the midst of his tour they decided to make a film out of it. I strongly believe that it wasn't originally planned at the start of the tour because of the way the film turned out. Yes it was funny but it was a very disorganized film that prevented itself from being one of the better stand-up films—even though it was leagues under classics like Eddie Murphy's Raw and Richard Pryor's Live on the Sunset Strip. A lot of disjointed moments limited the rate of laughs from the audience to a point that the ending became quite sour. However, this is a must-see for Kevin Hart fans. For others, you won't be converted to a fan from this material.

Laugh at My Pain consists of three acts: the first act being about Kevin Hart's tour of Philadelphia to the audience, the second act being his stand-up performance in Cali, and the final act being a random skit about robbing a bank. I did not make that up. Let's now talk about Kevin Hart. Kevin Hart's comedy comes at the style of Bernie Mac, not afraid of humiliating himself while telling a plethora of amusing (and sometimes exaggerated) stories about his upbringings and his lifestyle. He is one of the better modern-day comedians, but still lacks the variety, stamina, and the slick substance of Chris Rock and Dave Chappelle.

His stand-up here was definitely the best part of the movie, far more entertaining than the slightly egotistical but heartfelt intro in Philly, and much funnier than the awful skit that finishes the film. His stand-up routine isn't his best, but still delivers. He talks a lot about his dysfunctional family (including an excellent bit about his infamous uncle that's a staple in his comedy), his sex life and impending divorce, and about financial lifestyle. The one evolution you'll see here when compared to his past work is that he likes to run his jokes now, constantly repeating some of them throughout the bits. The audience I was watching the movie with was eating up this performance; they loved every second of it. Kevin Hart fans will not be disappointed.

And then there's the final third of the flick. Kevin Hart's stamina isn't as long as Bill Cosby, Chris Rock, Dave Chappelle, and not even the likes of Dane Cook. By stamina I mean length of his actual stand-up. While Bill Cosby and Eddie Murphy (back in the day) can easily pull almost 2 hours of bits in one sitting, Hart doesn't have that ability----yet. And because of this, he had to throw in something extra so the movie doesn't feel like an extended television episode. The final skit however was absolute garbage. First off the audience Hart appeals to will most likely not catch the references to Tarantino and Michael Mann filmmaking. Second off, it broke the entire pace of the movie. Third off, t was unnecessary and just all-around not funny. I strongly suggest walking out after his stand-up part finished so you can walk away from the theater with a smile and not a frown.

Bottom Line: Kevin Hart would have delivered a better movie if he extended his comedy and not try to become a Chappelle (his show was a hilarious underground phenomenon) or Rock by providing a skit. Skits are leagues different from stand-up and unless you have a true grasp on how to time your humor in these things, you are better off not performing any of them. Kevin hart's brand of humor is conventional, not too edgy or underground (like George Carlin) and will appeal to most audiences as long as you can tolerate the language. But if you are expecting a stand-up comedy classic like those we saw in the 70s and 80s, then you will be disappointed. This film isn't a game-changer, but will entertain plenty, especially in the middle bulk.

How the MLB 2012 Season Should Look Like (Attempt #2)

So we got football season approaching around the corner. And all the attention in the sports world will shift to the NFL although there is a great season of Major League Baseball still occurring. And that’s fine, its acceptable. Although baseball is my personal favorite sport, the NFL is just a much easier sports league to follow, and football is the representation of American sports. And whenever a sports season drags on too long, we shift focus—look at what happens in the spring when the NBA season is STILL dragging on and baseball can be felt in the air. But I had a random thought a couple days ago while thinking about the scheduling in baseball and how it can be improved: what if MLB was only done on weekends?



Now, for those avid readers of my blog, I have already done an outlook on how I think MLB should be scheduled in the coming years. But another idea popped into my head that just might be crazy enough to work. Picture this:

1) Baseball is only played on Fridays, Saturdays, and Sundays (with a few exceptions here and there, special games, make-up games, etc.).

2) Four games a week, with the double-headers occurring on Saturdays.

3) 2 bye weeks, to even out the playing field. This scheduling scheme can only work fairly if the proposed re-alignment plan of moving an NL team to the American League to even out the number of teams actually occurs.

4) Only four weeks a season will all 30 teams play, and that’s during Interleague play, when this is indeed possible. The Interleague system I have discussed before, but I strongly believe we should keep the interstate rivals (Mets-Yankees, Marlins-Rays, Royals-Cardinals) and always repeat the World Series of the year before.

5) 15 of the weeks will two teams have a Bye. Later in the season, 5 weeks will give six teams a bye week. That way every team in baseball has the same number of resting weeks.

6) Crunching in the numbers, it totals to a 24-week season, and 88 games per team overall.


Now, if you want a better visual representation of what the weekly breakdown of the games played will become under this format, here it is coming right up.




As for the playoffs, well, I’ve already discussed it in this article. Keep it the same; just add a second wild card to have a one-game playoff before the real playoffs start. Its simple, but it will definitely work. Now the question is, why on earth would we dip the season from 162 games to 88? Now I am not 100% serious on wanting this insane decrease of games and far more structured format, but if we played baseball on weekends, then it would be much easier to follow, and would be a much smoother addition to daily life as opposed to seeing the games bounce all over the place in the calendar and by the time you blink, you’ve already missed three-four games of baseball. And just like my other proposal, which would dip the season to a more modest 126 games, each game would hold far more weight as opposed to one-of-162 ballgames.

Football’s biggest appeal is the fact that it simplifies everything schedule-wise, and hands massive weight on each and every game. Almost all games on Sunday, one on Monday, later in the year we got one on Thanksgiving, and then a few sprinkles of Thursdays but everyone else still stuck on the Sundays. The average American can honestly adjust their life so that they can fit in a viewing of their favorite team without sacrificing too much from their daily routine. Baseball is 162 games, and without the playoffs that’s already 40-44% of your year. With football, the 16 games is barely past 4%.

If you pit baseball on weekends, then we can track our favorite teams better, and perhaps even plan out the weeks so that we can make a better effort to go to the games. While this doesn’t apply to your higher-market-high-fanbase teams like the Yankees, Phillies, Giants, and Cubs, this definitely applies to the Marlins, Orioles, Rays, Athletics, and especially the Rays (worth repeating). Of course the biggest problem is that this would utterly destroy every scheduling tradition in the book, and we all know baseball is about the tradition. Think of how the record books would be tarnished if we shanked the season to 88 games. So here is the other potential solution, although the players would probably hate me for it. A lot.

5 games a week. Double-headers on Friday and Saturday, with the potential series-tiebraker on Sunday nights. What would the total of games be? 24 X 5, which are 120 games. My other scheduling idea? 126 games. Not too far off, and baseball players would get 4 days off a week, while we fans still get 5 ballgames a week. Decent trade-off if you ask me. Last time any baseball league had this few number of games? 1886 National League. Yes folks, baseball goes this far back. And with all these days off, it gives us plenty of time for make-up games and potential tiebreakers towards the end of the year.


Bottom Line: Major League Baseball was a smash hit back in the day because it was chock full of legends, stories, history, rivalries, and memorable moments. But most of all, the world was of a slower pace, and allowed for us to enjoy baseball at its finest form. That was then. This planet is a far faster and more chaotic society today, and its one that doesn’t have time for 162 games of baseball unless you are a hardcore-hardcore fan. While my scheduling ideas are a bit on the drastic side (this one far more than the other) , why I am trying to accomplish is a way to make baseball more relevant without removing some of its Cracker Jack flavor. One thing is certain though, the sports world is evolving rapidly and there’s no way baseball can participate in the evolution if it sticks with its current scheduling guns.

An Ode to a Modern Summer Classic

In the midst of this terrible blockbuster season, I looked back and pondered just why it has been such a miserable year for movies. The answer is simple: too much retreading, not enough originality. The plethora of sequels, 3-D movies, remakes, and comic book adaptations became overkill and worst of all none of them really made much of a push to be anything decent. The critical reviews and dismal box office numbers proved this, as there were way too few hits (Pirates 5, Harry Potter 7.2, Transformers 3, Horrible Bosses) when compared to the disappointments (Green Lantern, Cowboys and Aliens, Captain America, Cars 2, Fright Night, The Change-Up, etc.). The message is simple: we viewers are tired of all the sequels, and we are tired of the sequels just not even trying anymore. But there was a blockbuster film on television today that best exemplifies what type of movie we audiences are actually craving. I give you: Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man’s Chest.

Major Note: Now, in order for me to fully make this argument, you have to try to forget that the writers and director pretty much tarnished the franchise forever with the third installment. Neglect the fact that At World’s End ever happened. Lesson to all you aspiring filmmakers: never ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever try to mix spaghetti western with swashbuckling action. This does not nor will it ever work. Now, back to our original article.




It has been 5 years since this movie came out, can you believe that? And special effects-wise, it still holds up. As a matter of fact, I would take this summer movie or anything we’ve seen this year. And for this reason mainly I still say in terms of summer movies throughout the history of film Dead Mans Chest is one of the most underrated. It raised the bar for special and visual effects like Jurassic Park, it delivered a very unique tale with high presentation like The Matrix, and does an excellent job raising the stakes and ramping up the action as a sequel like Terminator 2. And best of all, this movie has all the makings of a true Oscar contender, except having the personality that it actually gives two shifts about the Academy Awards.

The screenwriting, albeit a bit muddled, gives us a barrage of excellent and memorable characters. We have the irreplaceable Jack Sparrow, the feisty and unpredictable Elizabeth Swan, the sinister Davy Jones, the trusty partner Joshamee Gibbs, and the varied crew of the Black Pearl. The production effort in this film was to the scale of Star Wars, Indiana Jones, and all your other massive grand-scale cinematic mammoths. Just look at the movie again and look at the detail towards the set designs, the cinematography, the make-up (Naomie Harris, a naturally beautiful woman, was very uglified when she became Tia Dalma), and the sheer number of different locations used.

P.S.: where’s the Oscar nomination for best Original Score for Hans Zimmer? He aided this movie with his rounding musical compositions.

Dead Man’s Chest’s acting was also up to par. You think it’s easy to play pirates? You have to be a mix of intimidating, charming, entertaining, and also sympathetic. Remember, these are murdering monsters whose life mission is to rummage through the seven deadly sins without question. And yet, we are still rooting for them. That requires a good blend of writing and acting. There are very few heroes in this tale, and yet we quietly cheer for the scoundrels. Never easy to do. And of course, there’s Johnny Depp, who should have gotten an Oscar nod for his flawless performances in the first two Pirates (the latter two aren’t disappointing, but it’s unfair to ever nominate someone who has practically molded into said role).

Best of all, Dead Man’s Chest has something that has been sorely lacking in this summer season outside Fast Five (which actually doesn’t even qualify in the summer season since it came out in April): action. Lots of it. Remember the movie? Dead Man’s Chest had some of the best action sequences in the past 15 years, with the three-way showdown that started out simple and expanded into a massive sequence that looks like involved the entire island.

Come on now, two people were duking it out on a moving wheel while Jack Sparrow was inside the wheel desperately trying to get a key. At the SAME TIME, Swann and a few other pirates engage in a showdown against invincible henchmen of Davy Jones’ crew. AT THE SAME TIME (again) a massive monster was lurking in the depths, waiting for the return of Jack Sparrow to the ocean. Unlike the seemingly-endless fight in the end of Transformers 3, this movie never loses its creativity and variety, and never becomes redundant. Throw this skillfully directed sequence with the other fun sequences which includes: a chase scene between hostiles and the crew, a smaller showdown against the Kraken at another point in time, and a fun bar fight in Tortuga.

And finally, there’s something in this great popcorn flick that you just don’t see in any summer movie anymore: surprises. Looking back, Dead Man’s Chest was a very unpredictable tale that reeved up the number of plot twists and surprises in the second half of the movie. Let’s see: the treasure winds up in the hands of the East India Trading Company, Elizabeth Swann transforms from a higher-class citizen to a pirate, James Norrington betrays everybody involved, Elizabeth Swann assists in the murder of Jack Sparrow, Jack Sparrow actually dies, and biggest of all, Barbossa decides to make an appearance in the final shot. Doesn’t sound like a big deal now, but being in that audience back in the summer of 2006, this film turned lots of heads with its final act.


Bottom Line: We need more summer films like Dead Man’s Chest: a sequel that doesn’t copy the first, but expands upon it with a bigger budget, more effort, more action, more humor, and more surprises. The creativity of Dead Man’s Chest is exactly why I marveled and truly enjoyed this movie (and can still watch it today): it was unique and separate from the usual popcorn movie bunch with its special effects, storyline, and crazy action sequences. While the latter installments tarnished the reputation of this movie (much like how the Matrix sequels screwed up the mythology and written precision of the original) this movie can still stand the test of time as it doesn’t age, just maintains the quality it originally had five years ago. If filmmakers like Michael Bay, Joe Johnson, Jon Favreau, and Michael Bay (oh yea, repeating on purpose) took notes from this movie, we’d have a far better crop of movies as opposed to what we saw in the past few months.

Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man’s Chest: an underrated summer gem that doesn’t get enough respect. Even after 5 years and few movies that have been able to top it.


And remember, At World's End never happened.